Three Rickies

2008-01-14T15:00:00.000-05:00

Sarah Connor Chronicles Review

by: Richard "Rikalonius" Jefferies

I have just finished watching the second hour of the pilot episode of The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and begrudgingly enough, I liked it. Despite its requirement of not only suspending disbelief, but kidnapping disbelief and putting the offending noun in a rocket and launching it into outer space, it was a likable show with flashes of dramatic excellence. Actress Lena Headey is a competent and believable Sarah Connor. Glau, whom I had serious reservations about, impressed the heck out of me as John's latest protagonist terminator protector. In all actuality there is nothing to suggest that this new model; I like to call her "mini-terminator" was ever programmed for infiltration like her predecessors. It is my earliest analysis of the story arc (for the record), that future John sent this latest model to the past to intercept his childhood self when he would benefit from female companionship. She would be his protector and the stable partner his fugitive status could never afford him. After all, future John believes that his past self is going to succeed in breaking the vicious time loop that had developed, and when he did, the apocalypse wouldn't happen. Sarah would die of cancer, and present John, forever on the run from those who will never know the truth, would probably otherwise commit suicide a lonely and broken man. If the human resistance was as successful as Kyle Reese had informed Dr. Silberman, then future John would have the rest of his life to engineer a perfect robotic life-partner, knowing he could use the time displacement equipment at any time in the future to direct her to a point where Skynet had peppered the time-steam with terminators. Maybe future John didn't realize when he sent Kyle, the extent of Skynet's use of the time displacement equipment. So, as he uncovered it, he used the equipment accordingly to set the world right, or at least not set it on a course of nuclear annihilation. There, I should get a no prize* from the SCC creators.

One big problem of course, if you think all this through, is, if you are going to send a second terminator, why not send it to the same coordinates that you sent Reese, why not send two T800 units, making doubly sure that Sarah Connor survives. Additionally, to one up Skynet in this temporal chess match, the secondary programming of one Terminator would be to ensure that Skynet never becomes operational. Why send an engineer back to 1963 to build a time displacement device, and phase plasma rifle in 40 watt range (referring to amplitude not distance) and not at least drop Kyle Reese a Wester Union to let him know that there exists a weapon that can stop the terminator with a single blast. Eventually the time loop was going end one way or another. A miss step by Reese, bad luck, and BLAM Sarah Connor is no more. The terminator can as much as walk over to the Cyberdine factory, burn his fleshy layers off and shutdown at their doorstep. Or Sarah and Kyle could destroy the Terminator in a way that doesn't leave his mechanical parts littered about to be found and reverse engineered. But inevitability works both ways, and if Judgment Day is inevitable no matter what Sarah Connor does, then it's logical to conclude that it is inevitable that a human will rise up to lead the resistance, whether he be called John Connor, Kyle Reese, or Farles Wickens with four M's and a silent Q is irrelevant. Sure Skynet had discovered time travel, but it was not quite up on it's Philosophy.

What didn't I like about this show? Because the show is well done overall, I can, like most Americans, go ahead and place my head in the sand when it comes to continuity. There simply is none, so let's nitpick shall we?

1. Why the hell would Sarah and John, probably numeral uno on the FBI's most wanted list, stay in the United States as opposed to say a country void of an extradition treaty?

2. Why would John go to school, not much need for fancy learn'n in a post apocalyptic world? Although, I digress a bit and say that it would add to his charisma to be a learned man in a post apocalyptic world. It would endear others to him.

3. Why wouldn't Cameron disable the terminator after electrocuting him? I'm sure she had the know how.

4. Why would a S.W.A.T team stand around an watch a man, half his scalp missing or no, walk into the bank that was locked down without opening fire?

5. After having this entire bank event caught on security video, how in hell would the pieces of the T800 that Sarah blew apart end up in a junk yard 10 years later. Dumb!! If anything, the remains would have accelerated Skynet's development, and it would have pretty hard to remain in denial after cleaning up the pieces. The FBI agent has yet to play a significant role, but if he continues in his skepticism, it would be weak character development on the part of the writers. He'll get the Dana Sculley award for sustained skepticism in light of empirical evidence.

6. How does a machine dependent on it's CPU reassemble it's body and come find it's head in some scrap yard worker's house? DUMB!!! Frankly the existence of these "other" terminators are the weakest link in the plot. The show would do just as well with them being on the run from the Law without the special effects gags that the antagonist terminator has been relegated too.

In summary. Sara and Cameron's dialog and chemistry is good. John Connor is somewhat likable, and thankfully, far removed from Edward Furlong's whiny teen-angst portrayal. Which was still light years ahead of Jake Lloyd's young Anakin Skywalker, which was like listening to a rusty circular saw chew away at sheet metal. The antagonist HK (Hunter Killer) unit(s) are not used well, and frankly detract from drama. I would say the cancer bit is contrived, but it was established in the last movie, where it was definitely contrived, but is now considered canon. The creators are baiting their lure in attempt to draw in a large female audience. Fortunately their pandering has not resulted in an unwatchable show, unlike that barf-bag bomb Battlestar Galactica.

Rik

* No Prize: An award given by the editors of GI Joe comics for finding inaccuracies in the story, then creatively explaining why it was not inaccurate.

2006-11-20T00:07:00.000-05:00

I have a love/hate relationship with the company that is Disney which can best be broken down as follows: I love the theme parks and hate most of the movies. I do enjoy some of the older Disney films however. You can see the difference between Walt’s Disney and the modern beast it has become. As a young child I first saw Disney World’s Magic Kingdom during its 10^th anniversary year and two rides stuck in my mind and heart forevermore: The Haunted Mansion and The Pirates of the Caribbean.

Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean (PotC) is one of the greatest dark rides of all time with legions of fans in Disney parks across the world. However, in 1997 a far too PC California brought an unforgivable and heinous change to the Spanish Main. Please draw your attention to this cutting from the wikipedia article on the ride PotC (I’m aware that wiki is not the best source for correct information, but in this case they are correct, I’ve checked my facts it was just easier to present it in this format):

In its original form, the Disneyland attraction had a subdued, yet interpretively racy scene in which pirates were shown chasing attractive females in circles (achieved by simply animated figures on turntables hidden below guests' view), along with a comical reversal in which an overweight woman was seen chasing a pirate. Some were offended by this depiction and in response, Disney initially changed the woman chasing the pirate by having her try to hit him with a rolling pin. Then, in 1997, this sequence was changed so that the pirates now are pursuing women holding pies, and the large woman is chasing a pirate with a stolen ham.

Originally, one pirate was shown exhausted from his pursuit of an unwilling female, brandishing a petticoat as guests floated past, and uttering suggestive dialogue including "It's sore I be to hoist me colors upon the likes of that shy little wench," and "I be willing to share I be." Behind him, the woman would pop her head out from her hiding place inside a barrel. This scene was altered in the American parks, but it is still the same in the versions at Tokyo Disneyland and Disneyland Paris.

The "Pooped Pirate," as he was called, was dubbed the Gluttonous Pirate and was recast in the 1997 refurbishment as a rogue in search of food. His dialogue included lines such as "Me belly be feeling like galleon with a load of treasure," and "I be looking for a fine pork loin I be." The woman hiding in the barrel was replaced by a cat.

At the Magic Kingdom, the chase scene was altered to show the pirates making off with various treasure as the formerly "chased" ladies attempt to thwart them. The "Pooped Pirate" here is holding a treasure map in his lap and a magnifying glass in one hand. His lines here include "This map says X marks the spot, but I be seein' no X's afore me." The woman in the barrel remains, though this time she is hiding a small treasure chest inside the barrel with her.

The modifications garnered criticism from longtime fans and some of the original Imagineers of the Attraction. In Jason Surrell's book Pirates of the Caribbean: From The Magic Kingdom to the Movies, showwriter Francis Xavier "X" Atencio refers to the "softening" touches as "Boy Scouts of the Caribbean."

What madness was that? Would that have been Walt’s decision? Would he have caved to the pressure of PC groups that want the entire history of the world retconned and softened to meet their agenda? And do not think for even a minute that those dykes don’t have an agenda. As can be seen from the clipping, even original Imagineer and writer X Atencio was unhappy with the changes.

But what exactly was the purpose of softening the ride? It was already soft enough. It was not history, it was amusing fantasy. The pirates of PotC are eternally locked in a routine that belies the true horror of a pirate raid upon a 17^th century Spanish town. The pirates chased the women eternally but never caught them. The city burns for all time and no matter how long those pirates call to that dog he’s never going to move. It was a rollicking, jolly version of history. It was never claimed to be real. But this was not good enough for some people who claimed offense at this humorous pastiche of legend, history and literature, and thus is was changed. Many long time fans were offended by what was removed and what was then put in its place, but that carried no weight it seems. This is the result of the weakness and stupidity that is PC thought and action. Suppose we endeavored to teach as well as entertain; would the modified PotC suit? I think not. Those offended people that cause such a fuss as to have an attraction that was decades old changed to suit there sensitive natures would no doubt faint dead away were the ride to depict the true scenes of a pirate raid upon a town: the murder, the bloodshed, the raping, and wantonness. These comic scenes were safe, for as a child I did not know why the pirates were chasing the women only that it was funny and as an adult I laughed again, only for a different reason. That original edition was fine for a generation of children and their parents who were made of sterner stuff. Sadly now it has all become a nightmare of marketing and pabulum designed to appeal to everyone equally so that no one can truly enjoy it. No unique flavors allowed.

That is my love/hate relationship with Disney. I respect the late Walt Disney for what he created and what he saw that could be, and I hate the Disney corporation for what they have become. They have become faint: indistinct on the Media Landscape and lacking of courage. Walt once said that they must never forget that it was all started by a mouse. No, Walt, it was started by a man; it was destroyed by a mouse.

2006-11-13T22:35:00.000-05:00

And I killed a giant badger.....

As a nerd I have a long history of nerd things that I remember and sometimes relate around bonfires, while drinking, or just to play the great American game "Who had it worse". One such tale has to do with my days playing Dungeons and Dragons.Dungeons and Dragons, the venerable grandfather of RPGs. Like a venerable grandfather DnD often got many things wrong, but you accepted it as a form of truth due to the source. And after all, at one time DnD was the only game in town. I began my personal role playing experience with gamebooks (or more properly by playing 'pretend' as a small child, for what is role-playing if not 'pretend' with a codified rules set and some dice) but eventually moved into the world of tabletop RPGs with the second edition of AD&D. I had seen the first edition rulebooks and perused them, imagining the fun that could be had in a world of monsters and knights, wizards and demons, and all manner of mythological beasties roaming about making life hard for the intrepid heroes of which I could be a part, but it was not until the launch of the second edition and my first "group" that I became a part of the great nerd tradition known as role-playing.Within a few years I had mastered the 2nd edition rules and knew how to manipulate a first level character for maximum survivability given the playing styles of my fellow groupmates and our DM. I was not a min/maxer per se, but I knew how to make the character creation rules work for me. I was not a true rules lawyer, but rather a rules paralegal.One time I decided to abandon my standard group, with whom I had become disenchanted, always thinking that somewhere out there was a group that "did it the right way", as though there was one true, pure way to role-play and I simply hadn't found the group yet. I had a friend that lived a few blocks away from me in my subdivision who, despite living in my school district, attended a different school entirely (a wise move on his parent's part, I might add). I had become acquainted with some of his school chums over time and was invited to join them in a regular Sunday AD&D game. I had heard great things about this group. In particular I had been told stories that made me think that this was THE group. That elusive group who "did it the right way", so different did they seem from my own group based upon the stories I had heard.Thus I resolved that I would join this Sunday afternoon game and ventured forth with my friend to his group's meeting place where I rolled up a character and settled in for what I thought would be an exciting afternoon of adventure.Whether you believe in evolution, intelligent design, G-d, or Brahmen, the simple fact is that at our core, we are animals. As such we are blessed with a primal sense when something is not right and our instinct is to flee from it and if cornered to fight for our own existence. You sometimes feel this primal urge when on a blind date. Shortly after meeting your date and setting out to the restaurant you get a niggling feeling at the back of your head, that is your reflexes priming to run; know that. After a little more time and conversation you begin to realize that this date is not going as you had hoped, or worse, that this person with whom you are spending the evening, as though some arranged marriage has taken place, is not only not "your type" but they are the antithesis of everything that is "your type" and they may be fatal to boot. Around that time you start to realize that the niggling feeling you had shortly after meeting this crazy waste of space was in fact your Spider-Sense tingling and you should have cut and run when you first got the warning. But now you are nothing but a trapped, cornered animal and it is time to fight.Tangential, but it sets the stage for what I am about to say. Shortly after arrival, while I was rolling up my character, I got that niggling Spidey-Sense tingling, but I ignored it.My friend, with whom I had come to this game session in the first place, a young man named Doug, was asking that the DM and players agree to advance the timeline of the game so that his gnome could have the components to build a flamethrower. He only needed it advanced by about 100 years. When I helpfully suggested that if he could not get everyone to agree (as he was having a hard time winning them over to the prospect) he could have just come to the past through a magical mishap, he guffawed and said that, "This isn't a Scott game". Scott was my usual DM and was known for time spanning adventures where you might meet Capt Picard and his crew along with Dinosaurs all in one night. Admittedly Doug had a point, but something about the way that he said it, perhaps his strange logic that in a world of dragons and magic time travel COULD NOT happen, simply rubbed me the wrong way.What did I care? There was always one in every group. One guy who needed the whole thing shifted to suit his special character concept rather than creating a character that fit in with the world itself. And had that been the only problem I might have been happy with the group and contented with the whole adventure. In fact, myself and one other player were the only 'normal' characters in this too large group. One guy was a Drow outcast (because that Drizzt Do'urden fag was all the rage back then) and another guy was an Albino Drow outcast. Yay. I simply wanted to play a swashbuckler (2nd edition, Complete Fighter's Handbook, Swashbuckler Kit) and wanted to make use of the full advantages offered by the CFH. This I was denied. Yes, we can have a gnome that builds a flamethrower and TWO Drow outcasts (one an albino) but I can't use the alternate proficiency rules in the CFH. I was at least allowed to play a swashbuckler, so that's something. I was told that my swashbuckler would fit right in, as the adventure would be mostly urban. About 12 minutes into the game it became all woodlands. I may not be the smartest man in the world, but I do know that the word Urban carries with it NO connotations of woodland life.My next chime went off when I realized that the DM was also playing a character. A PC character, not an NPC. Obviously he was playing the NPCs, just not very well. I was familiar with the concept of the "pet NPC". Briefly, a pet NPC is an NPC that the DM more or less plays as HIS character even though this is expressly forbidden by both the DM's guide and the concept of the game. Daniel, for twas the DM's name, was actually playing a character in the group. Not a pet NPC who he could at least pretend was not a PC and pay us lip service about impartiality, no no. This was a bloody PC being played by the DM. My Bastard-Sense was tingling to beat the band, but I persevered, after all, I came to play.After the awkward group intros and getting the party together and heading toward a common goal we found ourselves in the woods, which is of course the most Urbane of all places and fighting a giant badger. I don't even remember why we were fighting a giant badger. Did we muck about in his giant badger den? Did we accost a Giant Rat, a Giant Mole and a Giant Toad in a waistcoat? I don't recall. I think it was most likely the result of one of those Random Encounter Tables that lackwit DMs use to generate interest. I do not know if this particular Giant Badger had a rich Scottish brogue or not as we had no Druid and the only Ranger in the group seemed to gleefully join in with this badger bashing sport that had been thrown into our laps by divine providence (or a bad die roll, you be the judge).A note about me and RPGs. I have always felt that the R in RPG means Role. Most of my gaming acquaintances seemed to think it meant Roll, as in dice. Thus I have always striven to pick weapons, armour, equipment and actions that reflect my "character concept" and I had rather hoped that this would be THE group. The one group that respected such dedication to the art form. (You know what would be brilliant? If James Lipton hosted a show entitled Inside the Gamer's Studio, and he interviewed gamers and asked them the kinds of questions he asks Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino about their 'craft'.) Sadly, it was not. No points or respect for Role Playing. So I jumped in and started to abuse the poor omnivore with the lot. This badger had taken a beating, but he was still alive. He had 1 hit point. 1. ONE. One Sodding Hit Point was all he had when the DM's character finally, FINALLY, FINE-A-LEY, managed to score a hit.Obviously the badger died and we could rest easy knowing that Giant gardens of root vegetables across the land were now safe to grow in peace.We continued on for a bit and most of us got shot by wood elves. We didn't die, but took damage all the same. I think that was supposed to lead to the plot hook, but thankfully as we had lost much time early on rolling up characters, the time to end the Sunday session arrived. I had long since stopped paying attention and had started reading back issues of Dragon magazine.With the session at a close, it was time for Daniel to award experience. Ah, that most coveted of awards, you strive for every little bonus point you can get. Now it is common knowledge among all role players I had met up to that point that the DM's guide stated that in regard to experience it was to be divided evenly among the all party members that had made a contribution and thus could benefit from the experience, with extra awards given to those who demonstrated particular cleverness, merit, bought pizza, etc. Further, the DM's guide stated that taking part in the encounter included all manner of things, including guarding the rear against attack, the mage prepping spells for when the fighters get in a tight spot even if he doesn't cast them or just being there and doing something useful was worth your fair cut of the XP. Now you remember, of course, the Badger. Ach, we all took a swing at that badger, I personally took off about 6 of his hit points by bashing him with the hilt of my rapier. One of the Drow twins managed to do a substantial amount of damage, whittling that stripey Scottish bastard down to one hit point when Daniel's character finally managed to land a hit, taking off the last Hit Point.So as the squeaky voiced little twat is laying out the experience awards to the party, detailing what they did to earn them, he finishes up by saying, "And I killed a badger, so I get 130 XP."Pardon me?Pardon the hell out of me. HE KILLED THE BADGER? What was I doing all that time when I was actually hitting it and doing damage instead of wiffing past it with my faggoty Dwarven battle axe?So the Sunday session ended and I received bupkiss.
Zero.
Zilch.
No XP.
No gold.
Not even a howzyurfather.
Sweet Fuck All.
I could have handled that lack of reward if only he hadn't spoken those ill-conceived words...."I killed a badger..."That was too much. The proverbial straw, if you will. I never went back for another session. I also informed Doug that although I valued his friendship, I felt that his group was, if anything, worse than my own when it came to rules and character abuse. It was a bit strong and I admit not entirely true; my steady group abused the character concept and the rules in different but equal ways. I chose to return to my own team. Sure they were bastards and tended to piss me off, but as me father always says, "Better pissed off than pissed on."

2006-09-21T15:18:00.000-05:00

SUPPLEMENTARY PUNCTUATION MARKS

I am writing this to address what I feel is a very real problem with Blogs, and in fact all writing in general. We are tied to a language that makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style. Further, when speaking to another we can use inflection and body language to get our meaning across. Sadly the written word hampers our efforts at communication. Reading may be fundamental, but to communication it is an impediment. Jesus taught in parables. Would he have been so successful if he had written pamphlets? I think not.
Thus, I have taken it upon myself to work out a series of special punctuation characters for our usage that will clarify our writings and thus aid communication and act to prevent misunderstandings.

(w)- This is the symbol for sarcasm. Use this symbol at the end of a sentence or immediately following a word as appropriate to demonstrate that you are making a sarcastic comment. (w) was chosen because there is a saying, often attributed to Oscar Wilde, but for which we have no proof that he said, however it sounds like the sort of thing he would say and that should be good enough, which goes “Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour and the highest form of wit.” Since wit begins with a “w”, the symbol for sarcasm shall be (w).

(Fe)- This is the symbol for irony. Use this symbol when the statement you are making is intentionally ironic. Since Alanis Morrisett wrote that song saying ‘isn’t it ironic’ when none of those things were, in fact, ironic, it has come to my attention that the bulk of America has no concept of irony. Let’s take steps to correct that.

(T)- This is the symbol to employ when something you have said was in jest. Such as a humourous comment that could be misconstrued as insulting, but that you meant it in jest. Since many a truth is spoken in jest and Truth begins with “T”, this is the proper symbol.

(oIo)- This is the symbol for satire. As you can clearly see it is a shaft and a set of balls. Use it when what you are employing is satire. Since the satirist relies upon his audience’s knowledge of the topic at hand and the hopes that his audience is quick enough on the uptake to realize the work is satirical and must not be taken at face value, this mark is essential in the modern world.

(*)- This is used to label what is clearly an opinion and not a solid fact. Many people get the two confused, so this should be most helpful. If you look at it right and squint you will see it bears a resemblance to the Ol Brown Eye. Since opinions are like arseholes…you get the idea.

(BS)- This mark is used when you are attempting to pass off what is apocryphal as a solid fact, especially if you are not going to cite sources.

Allow me to provide some examples.

1. Friends, Romans, countrymen lend me your ears. I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him. (Fe)

2. Spider-Man is the greatest hero ever. (*)

3. Wicca is an ancient nature religion with pre-Christian roots. It was started by the Celts long before the evil Romans ever came to the Emerald Isle. (BS)

4. Jinrikisha is hung like a baby carrot and a couple of English peas. (T)

5. Another Kevin Costner vehicle? I can’t wait to see that. (w)

6. In order to protect the struggling minority classes, it is clear to me, as it should be to any right thinking, feeling person, that the oppressive white male culture MUST be disenfranchised. (oIo)

I hope this helps. If we all pull together on this we might be able to make it a nationwide phenomenon and improve everyone’s understanding of the written word.

Thank you and G-d bless.

2006-09-19T21:46:00.000-05:00

Once upon a time there was a land called Europe. It was full of people of diverse cultures and languages, but they shared a common trait in that they had an oral culture. Being primarily farmers, these people would pass long dark winter evenings by telling tales that were meant for adults and children alike. These tales were meant to both entertain and frighten and they had meaning. Within each tale was a lesson to be learned, sometimes multiple lessons. These tales rarely ended happily.

Then one fine day the oral culture was supplanted by a literary culture and many of the people were no longer farmers. This was okay because the tales continued to be told, and although the various people lived in different lands and spoke in different tongues, the tales were all very much alike in all the important points. And one by one the tales were written down by different authors and some of the authors changed the tales, or perhaps they simply heard different versions. No one can really say to this day.

One fine day a new, magical land was discovered and they called it America. And America never had an oral culture to speak of, but that was okay because people from all over Europe came to America and brought the tales with them either in memory or in print. And time passed and the green land of America blossomed until one day it was determined that the tales and their lessons were no longer proper and so the tales were changed and new versions of the tales were printed. And the children of America grew up happy in their ignorance and they too had children and their children had children. And like their fathers and mothers before them, they too thought the tales were a bit too much for the youth and decidedly unmarketable given the globalized community that the green land had become, and so the tales were changed again. And eventually the children grew up and never knew that their tales had been changed to make them safer for developing minds and more marketable for media conglomerates run by anthropomorphic rodents in short pants. And first Le Petit Chaperon Rouge and then Rotkappchen disappeared until all the children had left was a syrupy happy ending. And thus did childhood extend ever until death and adulthood was hidden away for ever. And they all found out one day that there was no happily ever after. Too bad they weren’t prepared for it.

2006-09-13T17:18:00.000-05:00

WORLD'S FINEST part II

We’re all friends here but in order to have a meeting of the minds sometimes things have to be said that offend others. I don’t mean any disrespect to Jinrikisha, as I know he is quite the fan of Superman, but just the other day I had a go at Batman and now I feel it is only fair to give Superman his due.

Let me establish a few things first. When I lambasted Batman that was unexpected; I’ve never had a thing against Batman before. Superman, on the other hand, I’ve despised for most of my life. I just don’t like the character. I don’t like his concept, I don’t like his execution, and I don’t understand the mentality that makes a person a Superman fan. Yet there are plenty of fans out there, so if someone can explain it to me, please do.

From a psychological perspective, our heroes are either reflections of who we wish we were or who we believe we are. In order to have a hero it must represent something to you or about you. I find that different heroes represent different archetypes and thus do their fans adhere to them for differing reasons. Superman is functionally omnipotent. Not only is he invulnerable, super strong and can fly, but he also seems to have a slew of powers and abilities that are not purely physical. A character like the Hulk is defined by his super strength. Hulk is all about strength and yet he is weaker than Superman. On his worst day, Superman can pick up an aircraft carrier and on his best day he can apparently turn a black hole into a square or some shite. He has no discernable weaknesses aside from kryptonite and magic. Thus, I put it to you that the ability to derive enjoyment from reading the adventures of such a hero, who simply cannot be challenged, is the worst type of mental masturbation/wish fulfillment fantasy.

Anything I write runs the risk of seeming as though I cribbed someone’s act, and I don’t want that, so understand that this is coming from the heart. I don’t understand the DC universe’s concept of superheroes and power levels. There are only two types: Supermen and Batmen. You are either all powerful (like Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman) or you have no powers to speak of by comparison. Thus why does any superhero team need a Batman, a Flash, an Aquaman or any other second stringers like Green Arrow when they allow Superman on the roster? Is it in case a wizard made out of kryptonite shows up and starts kicking arse?

If Batman wears a Swiss Army Belt full of gadgets for every occasion, then Superman is the Swiss Army Man of Steel. He has a power for everything; full spectrum analysis vision, super photographic memory, super computer fast reasoning skills, and the strength to impose his will upon the world. Where is the drama? Where is the challenge? Where is the compelling storytelling?

DC finally went too far when they killed him. They created a superbeing specifically to kill Superman and then had the Man of Steel sacrifice his own life to save us. Then we were treated to all the soppy “World Without a Superman” baloney and the four different Supermen. Blah, Blah. We did fine before he came to this planet, we could do fine without him. I think the guy with the magic power ring that does anything except effect the colour yellow can cover for Superman. And for those yellow emergencies we have Martian Manhunter. Then they brought him back. How touching. How crap. It ruined the heroic nature of his sacrifice.

Finally, this whole Superman, flag waving, All American Boy bullshite is unfounded. This is supposed to be the land of the free; the land where every man can become more than his birth would dictate through perseverance, hard work and connections. But what message is Superman sending? He is better than us because he was BORN better. He is an alien, and perhaps there is a message there, sure, but the fact is his powers have more in common with the old European notion of noble blood and divine right of kings than they do with America. Superman is the Ubermensch, better by breeding, better by DNA, better by everything. He has no flaws that we as humans do not also have. We can’t just grab a chunk of kryptonite either; it is highly radioactive and causes cancer. We can’t cast magic spells willy nilly, and if we could we would be superheroes and thus measured on a different scale. Thus his flaws are not so dramatic after all. A simple Achilles Heel. Funny thing about Achilles, his one weakness was no weaker than the next Greek’s heel. So I cannot abide Superman. I cannot abide the message he puts forth. I cannot understand the mentality that enjoys the exploits of Can’t Fail At Anything Man. But I’m willing to listen because I want to know.

2006-09-12T09:14:00.000-05:00

WHY HOLLYWOOD CANNOT MAKE A DECENT BATMAN FILM:

Crap source material. Plain and simple. The source material is not that good. To make matters worse, Hollywood, the home of left wing liberal communist thought, seems to have no grasp on the character to begin with. How can they be expected to make a decent film when they don't understand the nature of the Dark Knight Detective?
Since Tim Burton's little opus the Hollywood movie machine has tried to work the dual identity theme, the humour theme, and the "all my villians are psychos" theme and failed at every turn. Why is this, you ask. Because this is not the essence of WHO Batman is. Nay, WHAT Batman is. Batman is, to put it frankly, a Co-Dependent Faggot.
The proof: Batman could prevent future crime by putting his enemies in a facility with a proven track record for keeping them locked up. Like OZ. Rather, he makes sure they go to Arkham Asylum. If they weren't crazy before their incarceration, they certainly will be afterwards. I imagine that a typical hearing in a Gotham court of law goes something like this:
Judge: Counselor, the defendant seems rational, reasonable, and to have a full grasp of right and wrong. Prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant was motivated by greed and a callous disregard for the sanctity of the law. While this behaviour is reprehensible, it hardly qualifies as insane.
Counselor for the Defense: Ahh, your honour, you see my client was apprehended by The Batman!
Judge: I see. I rule criminal insanity. I see no other alternative but a lengthy stay at Club Arkham.
Thus Batman creates a subculture of villians that define their existence around him. They seek revenge against Batman. They blame Batman for their failures. They attempt escape in order to commit crimes, not for gain but soley to thwart (and thereby draw the attention of) Batman. To the average Gothamite there are far more important day to day issues than the Joker, the Riddler and whether or not some homo running around in tights and a swiss army belt exists. They have bills to pay. By making himself a thing of the night and the shadows, Batman needs something to justify his existence. That thing is a set of "villians" that are utterly devoted to his existence, or the ending of it, as the case may be. Thus Batman is co-dependent. QED.

He is also a fag. Batman avoids relationships with women. So does James Bond, but at least Bond exercises his misogyny by dominating the women he meets. Bond is not a homosexual. Batman avoids sexual tension like the plague. Like most self-respecting homosexuals, he will not have sex with women, and thus knows that his line ends with his death. How to avoid this problem? Like all biological organisms he seeks immortality through replication, but since he cannot, or rather will not, have sex with a woman, how does he achieve immortality of his genetic code? The answer is simple: Robins.
Batman seeks out youths that have had a tragic life of some kind, all the better when they have lost their parents as he lost his own. But rather than rehabilitate the young men and help them cope, becoming useful members of society, he fuels their childish desires for revenge and fantasy by training them, equipping them, and giving them skin-tight gay bondage fetish gear. The young men remain with him until they either grow up and realize how creepy the old queen really is, or die. Batman sets up a sick incestous father/lover figure relationship with his young wards. One can only assume that Bruce Wayne was educated classically, if you get my meaning and I think you do.

Batman's homosexual repression does not extend only to Robin. Batman wants only men around him. Commissioner Gordon and Alfred being his two closest companions. He is obviously in a number of repressed homosexual relationships with some of his oldest and most implacable foes. Reading the dialogue exchange between Batman and the Joker whenever Joker escapes from Arkham (yet again) is like seeing two old lovers who've long since stopped being intimate but still smolder with their old passions and are forced to run into one another in awkward social situations. The old queens are catty, petty, insulting, but it is obvious that their verbal and mental games are reminiscent of the passion they once shared when their love was new and full of promise. There is less of the nature of antagonism to their banter and more of the nature of foreplay. As though Batman is saying to the Clown Princess of Crime, "We've been through it all before, ducky, you know how it must end. Ah, our time together is always so brief."
Sure, on the surface Batman is saying, "Once and for all Joker, this has to stop. I will put you away again. And don't think for a minute that if you escape I won't be there to put you back."
But his subtext is saying, "I've never forgiven you. You know that. I'll never forgive you for making me love you so."
It's obvious that the Joker could kill Batman easily, but he doesn't because he only wants Batman to know that in his way, despite all they've been through, he still cares deeply and truly.

And that is why Hollywood cannot make a decent Batman picture. They have it all wrong. The Dark Knight, his boy wonder, the crazy villains; it is all just a big faggot opera about men in spandex with their packages crammed into tight fitting rubber underpants.
Next Time: Superman-What sort of crazy Nazi wet dream is he?

2006-09-08T12:53:00.000-05:00

Mark your calendar:

http://www.talklikeapirateday.com/wordpress/

2006-09-05T08:34:00.000-05:00

Death of a Hero
Monday morning I learned that one of my personal heroes had passed away in a freak accident. Steve Irwin, better known as the crocodile Hunter, was killed in a pedestrian dive off the Queensland coast by a small ray that unexpectedly struck him directly in the heart. I've only heard rumors, as I don't wish to watch the video footage of his death, that he was pulling the barb from his chest when he lost consciousness and slipped into cardiac arrest. If this is true, it only heightens the awe I have of this courageous individual.

But Steve Irwin, for me, exceeded his bravado with his compassion, intelligence, and his unique attunement with nature. He risked life and limb to bring the viewer into nature, rather than preach at you from a comfortable pulpit like his detractors, and you know who you are. Steve Irwin was a champion of animal husbandry. While his body was covered with the scars of encounters gone wrong, one only needed to see this six foot powerhouse of endurance fall to one knee and weep like a child at the death of one his crocs to understand what these animals meant to him. He pioneered the most humane ways to trap animals so they could be returned to the wild having suffered the least amount of anguish possible. Even when bitten, or scratched, or poisoned he never expressed one ounce of ill will toward the animal, always jokingly chastising it as bad girl or boy. Most of us curse volumes if we are stung by a bee.

Steve Irwin not only put his body on the line, but put his money were his mouth was also. Steve purchased large tracks of land in Australia, Fiji, and the United States to use as wildlife preserves. He epitomized what it means to practice what you preach, and he reached millions with his very resonating message of wildlife conservation. In short, Steve Irwin did more in his thirty minute show than all the naked, paint lobbing, Peta bimbos have ever done to change public opinion, and that’s why they hated him. As much as I would like to express my disdain for some of the worthless organizations who impugned Steve’s work because he didn’t properly kiss their oh so sophisticated feet, I will refrain, because this post is for me to eulogize his passing. For as much as I was entertained by Steve Irwin, I was also educated by him, and for that I am grateful. I was also insanely jealous of the opportunities he had to be so close to these creatures, though for him it was the richly deserved reward of a life of hard work, dedication, and service to them. I hope when all this passes, and the world is made new again, I can enjoy a taste of what Steve Irwin enjoyed. That would be heaven. My thoughts and prayers go out to Steve’s lovely wife Terri, and their two beautiful children. We’ll all miss him greatly.

2006-08-17T22:40:00.000-05:00

Is profiling such a bad thing??

In a recent discussion on my car forum, we've been dissecting the nuances of profiling Islamic extremists. While on paper this may seem like a logical route to ensure domestic safety, it is far from simple. Granted, we do have a profile for the 60+ terrorist acts against the U.S. and its citizens: militant Islamic extremist ages 17-41. No gender, no national origin, and no physical attributes define this large group. It has been said that profiling Muslims in America is akin to the Japanese internment camps of WWII. But, when was the last time Granny Mae and Uncle Wilber strapped a pack of ball-bearings and C4 to their coveralls, in order to create a painting similar to a Jackson Pollock work...only using their innards as the paint and a café as the canvas??

2006-08-11T12:57:00.000-05:00

And now a word from our sponsors...

2006-08-10T10:33:00.000-05:00

Even if they weren't successful on mass scale, it really is hard to deny they had the ability to succeed at least on occssion of generating electricity through a "light bulb".

Found at a site not far from this were: watertight copper cylynders glued into opening with asphalt was an iron cylinder also held with asphalt, which can provide enough current for a battery.

Priest
ionised fumes
electric discharge (snake)
Lamp socket (Lotos)
Cable (Lotos stem)
Air god
Isolator (Djed-Pillar)
Light bringer Thot with knifes
Symbol for "current"
Inverse polarity (Haarpolarität +)
Energy storage (electrostatic Generator?)

This post has been made on behalf of KillerKat, because she can't put a pic in the comments block. It is in ref to the discussion about Egyptians and electric lights.
V.

2006-08-08T09:22:00.000-05:00

I have a question for all the cats and kittens: What is to you the ultimate American creation and how has it survived or been destroyed?
That's a pretty broad question, I'll grant you. But I'll start things off to give you an example of what I'm asking.
For me the ultimate American creation is Rock N Roll. That wholly American amalgamation of blues, R&B, swing, jazz, country, and folk music.
Each culture can be said to have at least one defining musical art form. Even today the less ignorant of us can hear a piece of cultural music and say, "That's sounds Russian, Baltic area." or something similar. The Poles have Polka. The Irish have the jig music. The Japanese have those big drums and that odd looking banjo that you play with a spatula. But America, we invented Rock N Roll.
America, being a land made up of various cultures that, at least on the surface, intermingle, originally had no cultural music of its own. Obviously each culture that came here brought its own music with it. Then the mixing began. Negro spirituals as the slaves accepted Christianity and hoped that after the trials of life they would have an eternal reward were gospel songs treated to their own cultural styles. The American music form began to form. In the Appalachians the hill folk, mostly Celtic stock, brought the music of their fatherland into our land and created what we today call Bluegrass. Time rolled on. America began to produce multiple musical forms of its own, but each was tied to a specific cultural experience. The black man sang the blues and Jazz. White boys took Jazz and made Dixieland, a type of Jazz-Swing. The time was growing ripe for the birth of a true American musical form that would allow all, despite race or creed to play. In the early 50's cats like Perry Como were the rage amongst the white adults. The youth wanted Rythm and Blues, a black musical style. White DJ's responded and before you knew it we had Elvis. A white boy that sang in the style of the black gospel singers and bluesmen he grew up listening to, but infused with the Appalachian hillbilly sound. Rock N Roll was truly born. Slapping bass, twangy guitar, vocalists who didn't so much croon as they tore the sound from their very souls and sang songs about sex and sin. America had arrived musically.
So what happened to it?
Where did the Rock N Roll go?
Did, as Don McClean sang, the Music Die?
Modern Rock N Roll can't even be called Rock N Roll anymore. It has become a fractured thing with more labels and compartments than a Pentagon file room. EMO kids, punks that are rebelling against...what? Their freedoms, which are far too many given their age and responsibility. Heavy Metal that is NOT about smoke and lightning. What would Steppenwolf think? Born to be mild. That's what it has all become.
Who killed it? Formula bands fitting a corporate wet-dream of cookie cutter music?
PC labeling that took the balls away from Rock N Roll?
Once upon a time a girl could Rock and Rock hard. Lita Ford, Joan Jet, Betty Blowtorch...I miss you guys.
In the words of the Bullet Boys, "What's this I hear on the radio/I can't believe my ears/All these sad songs and broken hearts/And crying in your beers/Didjall forget what macho means?/It means Rotten to the Core/Good God turn this shit off/I can't take it anymore"
Indeed.

So what's yours then?

2006-08-06T23:29:00.000-05:00

Here is a picture drawn by my own loving wife, who you know as KillerKat. I asked her for some help providing a sketch for some writing I am working on at the moment. Unfortunately I did not give her parameters of what I wanted. Be that as it may, I very much like the picture she has provided. I think it is a bit of a Gwen Steffani inspired piece, but Kat disagrees with me on that.

That's okay. Loving support from the spouse. My fault for not actually describing what I was looking for. It's better than anything I've done of late. My stuff has been way too angular for the past year.

Now that I've given her a description of what I'm really looking for, she is thinking of ideas to put to paper. Be on the lookout for that action in the near future.

2006-08-06T23:22:00.000-05:00

What happened to neighborly courtesy??

I try to be a cordial, respectful and "keep to myself" kind of resident. Do I have the capacity to rev my engine to 5,000 rpm at 10 p.m.? Sure, but I don't. Can I crank the 750 watt Harman Kardon receiver so high that the Klipsch speakers prove they truly ARE the loudest in their class?? Absolutely...but I don't.

So, why is it so hard for people to be just as respectful in return? All I ask is that you have some decency and allow my nine-month-old to get some rest. I can sleep through just about anything (general quarters proved that!) and my wife can too if she has to. But my little boy isn't so adept at blocking out the intrusive noise of a tile saw outside his window. This isn't the only instance of your disregard for your neighbors, mind you. And when I kindly ask that you cease the Tim Allen antics at 9 o'clock at night, I don't enjoy being told that the work will continue "until he finishes". Because, that in turn makes it so much easier for me to call the local constable and report your unruly, ghetto, fat ass!!!!

Now the gloves are off.

No holds are barred.

You've unleashed the wrath...don't you dare ask for mercy!

2006-08-01T14:02:00.000-05:00

WARD CLEAVER IS PUNKER THAN THOU

I defy you to find a man more bad-ass, more punk, more hard-core than right-wing conservative champion of moral values and ordained Methodist minister Ward "the Cutter" Cleaver. Architect, Sea Bee, All Around American Bad-Ass. The man who heard every morning at breakfast, "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the beaver last night?"
As if.
Back of the hand, baby. Backhand boogie if I don't get my toast and juice in a timely fashion.

Okay, insanity aside, you may be asking, "Why are you claiming that Ward Cleaver is the All American B.A.? What makes Ward so punk?"
I'll tell you: Punk, rebellion, going against the status quo. Today the status quo is the single parent family, the unwed mother, allowing children free reign to 'express themselves and grow' into an irresponsible asshole adult. Today the status quo is all about punishing the very people that made this nation economically viable. Today the status quo is about a gynocracy that demands equality in the form of tipping the balance completely in their favour. And that is why Ward "the Cutter" Cleaver is punk. He stands for the complete opposite of today's irresponsible, decadent status quo.
Ward, where are you when we need you?
Where are you to take us under your wing and with a stern yet kind face, tell us where we have gone wrong, giving us the subtle, but firm nudge toward the right way of life?
Where are you Ward, the strong, commited and loving father figure? We are left with nothing but dumb dad comedies and commercials depicting our stupidity for having the misfortune to have been born with a penis.
Where is the man that fought in WWII, came home and raised two strapping boys and kept his wife in pearl necklaces?
Where is Ward now? Where is the man that could instill respect and fear with a look and a word without having to resort to the beatings that Wally and the Beaver alluded to, but never received?
Who will lead us now?
So take that all you EMO kids and you anti-establishment rebels who buy your "punk" gear at Hot Topic. Take that, you guy wearing the shirt that proclaims in white and black your individuality that you bought at a corporate chain store. Take that you faggots with your hoodie sweatshirts adorned with rubber spikes.
Take that Rosie O' Fatarse and Ellen Degenerate.
You are not the rebels anymore. Ha! You are the fucking Evil Empire. You won. Your way of life is the accepted norm. We are the outcasts now. We are the victims. We are the real rebels.
And that's why Ward Cleaver is punker than you will ever be.

Q.E.D.
V

2006-07-27T23:20:00.000-05:00

Effective Persuasive Writing

I just completed this course with Axia College (the junior college of University of Phoenix). A final persuasive essay was due at the end of the course. After previewing it, Rikalonius suggested I post it here...along with the instructors comments on the essay. Here is my work(sans the reference and title page):

Abortion as birth control
Of all the forms of birth control, none are as violent, destructive and dangerous as abortions. The decision to abort a living embryo/fetus is unlike any other contraceptive known to mankind. This single act sacrifices one life to allow another to live without responsibility. As humans we should embrace life, encourage it and protect it. Yet, when it comes to this heinous act, all that sentiment is thrown by the wayside.
Not unlike slavery or euthanasia, abortion devalues human life. Ending the life of an unborn human, we demonstrate that this life is an expendable byproduct rather than a precious gift. This action is repeated and then it becomes accepted as a social norm. So, now the stark reality is that we’ve become a society willing to throw away a life. This truth is seen clearly when we compare views on abortion today versus one hundred years ago. W. Brennan (1983) has shown us that the American Medical Association contrasts itself from its prior view on abortion as “The slaughter of countless children; such unwarranted destruction of life; the work of destruction; the wholesale destruction of unborn infants” to the more modern view of “The interruption of pregnancy; the induced termination of pregnancy; a medical procedure”. This updated outlook makes us less likely to protect human life. The Oath of Hippocrates declares that a medical professional will only protect life, yet doctors kill everyday by performing abortions. Even as a society, we’ve become eager to end the life of an embryo in order to remove the “burden” of being a parent. According to Finer (2005),
Most U.S. women cite more than one factor contributing to their decision to have an abortion: Almost three-quarters say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about three-quarters say they cannot afford to have a child; and almost half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. (pp 110–118)
It is apparent that having a child is viewed as an inconvenience and rather than take proper measures to prevent conception, abortion is used to resolve the issue.
But, let’s call abortion what is really is: murder. The act takes the life of a living, defenseless, innocent human. Some have argued that a human isn’t present at conception. Numerous leaders in the field of medicine and science agree upon the point of which a human life is created. Professor J. Lejeune (1981) stated, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception"; similarly, Professor H. Gordon (1981) testified "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception"; and lastly, Professor M. Matthews-Roth (1981) also confirmed, “It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception". The basic principle of mortality is that a being is either alive or dead. If a zygote continues to multiply its cells, then it is obviously alive. So, to say that even killing a human at this early stage isn’t murder is incorrect. Within 18 hours of fertilization 46 human chromosomes are present. The genetic code, which defines every attribute of the human, is now present. Only ignorance or complete denial would refute the fact that stopping the growth process at this point would be killing a human.
What’s worse is that abortion is repeating a horrible incident that will forever scar humanity. There is a direct correlation between modern day abortion and the Nazi attitude on ending a life. The evidence is clear when comparing the Reich Citizenship Law (1935), "Only persons of ‘German or related blood’ can be citizens; this does not include Jews" to our own U.S. Supreme Court, in the infamous Roe vs. Wade case, "The word ‘person’ as used in the fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn". Even Hitler’s Euthanasia Order (1939) "The authority of physicians is enlarged to include the responsibility for according a ‘mercy death [to] incurables" bears striking resemblance to another Roe vs. Wade comment, "The abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently and primarily a medical decision and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician". Even the language doctors’ use today is the same language of killing used before. They distance themselves from the humanity of the fetus as did Nazi physicians from the victims they experimented upon. Sadly, our medical professionals’ obedience to authority has been skewed. They no longer adhere to the highest cause, protecting life, but to the whims of a woman who wants to live without responsibility. How long are we to going continue to sub-humanize the embryo? Every time a human is aborted we emulate the disgusting acts of Nazi controlled Germany.
We are not without hope. There are alternatives to the unwarranted killings. While still taught in today’s schools, abstinence is not properly being promoted by educators. More and more, the use of contraceptives is being pushed. Contraception is not a clear preventative to conception. Even the best contraceptive is not 100% fail-proof, most especially when human errors factor in, e.g. skipping a day of oral birth control, improper use of vaginal contraceptives, or failure of a condom to properly prevent the transfer of fluids. Thankfully, the benefits of abstinence go beyond simply lowering abortion rates. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases would most certainly be interrupted. Teenagers who do opt to have a child if they become pregnant would not have to concern themselves with that awesome responsibility if they were to abstain. Another extremely beneficial alternative to killing a human is adoption. According to Jean Garton (1999), “In the United States today there are two million couples seeking to adopt. Unfortunately, there are only 30,000 children available for placement each year”. With the amount of infertile couples compared to the abortion rate, we should have an almost perfect situation…had those lives not been aborted. In fact, many times willing couples are so desperate that they often adopt special needs children due to the lack of non-handicapped children.
The facts are clear, simple and undeniable: abortion is used as birth control. As a society we’ve gone from protecting innocent lives to destroying them just to be void of the responsibility. How long before we devalue the elderly or handicapped and see them as a similar burden? We have the power to make a change, to stop the murders and create a world that embraces the future. It all starts with a choice, will you stand up and defend the life of a defenseless human or will you cower in the shadows?

While it is not hugely persuasive, my main goal was to adhere to the requirement of the paper. I did that and thus received 280 out of a possible 300 points. Here is what my instructor had to say about it (some parts might not make sense as I did not paste the requirements which the instructor is referring to):

This was definitely a persuasive essay that met the minimum word requirements and addressed one of the 5 topics to the left. I did not see any evidence of a counter argument, but you submitted your essay as an attachment. You had at least 2 in text citations and 2 corresponding references on your reference page. In addition, your thesis was clearly stated and less than 25 words. Your introduction effectively previewed your main points and your conclusion reviewed those points without adding new information. Finally, your major points were clearly stated and supported by sufficient detail. However, this essay was far too emotionally charged and perhaps that was my fault for allowing you to choose this topic. Your comparison of abortion to the Holocaust was particularly disturbing. You cannot compare a single act (abortion) to a systematically designed plan to annihilate an entire race of people! There is no conspiracy with abortion, it is a choice for each woman. These women do not come together and make a conscious choice to try and eliminate all the fetuses in the world. However, that is exactly what Hitler and the Nazis did with the Jews. Do you see the difference?

Discuss...

2006-07-27T11:34:00.000-05:00

BURN WITCH BURN (Slight Return)

I am generally an open-minded type of guy. People have their beliefs and I am okay with that. In fact, there is nothing I can do to stop it. You believe and think what you want, it is your only inalienable right. I mean, how can anyone really stop you?

But, for all that, I have a personal hatred of a few things. We all know vampires are on the list, as well as stupid Ebay ads and my love for killing zombies. Yet I hold a personal disgust and hatred for witches. Wiccans if you must. Still, a witch by any other name burns just as brightly. Heh.

I do. I admit it. I've even dated three of them. This is not why I dislike them so. I want to go on the record as saying that my past relationships with Wiccans has nothing to do with my dislike of them. There, glad we cleared that up. No, the reason I dislike them so is their self-righteous bullshit; their delusions that they worship some ancient Celtic nature religion, and their general uselessness to the world at large.

Point 1: They say that Wicca comes from an ancient Anglo Saxon word that meant wise. Not true. Further, if you worship an ancient Celtic faith, where does an Anglo Saxon word come into it? Stupid bastards.

Point 2: I've never once seen one work an actual spell successfully. I've seen many claim that they can, but when asked to prove it, they always cite some bullshit rule of three that they made up to cover their arses. Shower of bastards. You know, the skraelings had a similar logic about their medicine. If it didn't work it meant that the spirits did not honour your plea, or the other guy's medicine was simply stronger. Isn't that convenient.

Point 3: This bullshit about the "Burning Times". I despise seeing an interview with a witch wherein she talks about how "Christians" did very "Unchristianlike things" to their neighbors. You know, the not loving their neighbors as themselves bit. I suppose this means that if Jesus had been hanging out in the woods and a coven of twats were worshipping a tree he would have been all, "Cool, you dudes do YOUR thing, I'm gonna go over here and do MY thing. We can all just get along, baby." Sure. I'm down with that. Right after I make myself a turd taco for lunch.

Point 4: I've studied this Celtic thing. Took courses on it in college. Conspiciously absent were these practices that these so-called Wiccans seem to claim are ancient and a part of their religion.

Point 5: Talking like Yoda and acting mysterious is all just that, an act. It's a cover for the fact that your so-called religion is bullshit. It's no more real than Jediism. And this is not the time nor the place to get started about these "Jedis", but know that they are full of shit too.

Point 6: Gerald Gardner. The actual inventor of Wicca. He claimed it was ancient as well. I'm not going to delve into it here. If you need to know more about this cunt, look him up online. Believe me, you will find plenty of information out there.

Point 7: Matriarchal bullshit. You are going to sit there and tell me that once upon a time the whole world was matriarchal and you are returning to it. Empowering your feminine self (empower is a fucking buzz word if I ever heard one, I'm ashamed that I even typed it) and rejecting the Patriarchal, male dominated religions like Christianity? I wonder how the matriarchy lost all its power if your magic is so strong. Oh, wait, no magic. Bullshit, made up religion. QED.

Point 8: These stupid made up animal names. Nobody can just be Kathy or Ted. Hell no. They are all Ephemeral Butterflygoddess Jones or some such shite. I know that nuns and suchlike get new names when they take their vows, but even so, those names make sense. If this is such a Celtic religion (lying bastards) then why not some Celtic names? Here is a Celtic name: Setanta. Here is another Celtic name: Lugh. Here is NOT a Celtic Name: High Priestess MorningGlory Dragonfly. And who is this person? Here is a cut and paste from her website:

History

The College of Wicca and Old Lore was founded in 1999 by High Priestess MorningGlory Dragonfly. As then owner of Herbs and Arts, she saw more Pagans in Denver seeking instruction in the Craft than there were teachers.

MorningGlory was given a vision and challenge to create a Pagan community to teach students and also prepare teachers to carry on teaching in the Wicca.

Point 9: Art and propaganda. The majority of wiccans are overweight or crack whore thin, with the bulk being of the former. So naturally on their websites and the covers of their books they use artwork of very slim, scantilly clad women in the woods. Is this the goddess? Is this feminism? Is this the equality sought after? This is not just propaganda, it is self-deception, and that is the worst lie of all: the lie told to oneself.

Point 10: No actual ethos. It's all just make it up as you go with those twats. It attracts effiminate men and frightening women. I'd love to get a grant to study the correlation between obesity and predisposition towards Wiccanism. And I think you know what I mean. They are like hippies, but with an even less codified and useful belief system. At least hippies TRIED to make a positive change in the world. With these Wiccan twats you just get people that want to be conspicuously different and then use that as a talking point for complaining about being treated differently. It's all a game. There is no actual belief there. Just people claiming to be a Wiccan, only not really a Wiccan. I mean, really I worship nature as a force, but reject the idea of a "goddess", I simply pray to the "goddess" as a mental focus for my chants and spells. I'm also a wererabbit who is half dragon and one fifth goose. And a white necromancer.

That right? Fuck off quickly before I set you on fire.

So basically I hate witches and dream my little dreams about the burning times...and I grin.

2006-07-27T11:07:00.000-05:00

This post is concerning a question I first put forth to Jinrikisha and which was answered by Rikalonius concerning the holiday known to us as Halloween.

Halloween, Hallowe’en, All Hallows Eve, Samhain. History and anthropology have given us much information about this holiday, but they are often suspect. What do we really know about this holiday? If you do even a minimal amount of internet research you should uncover the following answers (or at least a variety of answers similar to those that follow):

1. Halloween is the Devil’s birthday.

2. Halloween is an ancient pagan festival and one of the most important holidays for wiccans.

3. Halloween was the time when the ancient druids would sacrifice children. If you wanted to be safe you had to give your babies to the druids.

4. Halloween is a time of darkness when the veil between worlds is lifted and the dead can roam freely. People wear masks to hide from the dead.

5. The jack o lantern was originally made from a turnip.

6. Every Halloween hospital emergency rooms fill up with children who have been the victims of malicious adults placing razor blades in apples and poisoning candies.

7. Halloween was originally called Samhain. Samhain was the ancient Celtic god of death and the dead.

That was just a few of the things you can find out from reading the internet. Now, I ask you, how many of those statements are verifiable truths? Historically here is what we know about Halloween:

It is the eve before All Saints Day, which is Nov. 1^st. We also know of an older, pre-Christian festival called Samhain, which as near as we can tell means Summer’s End. Let us look at Samhain. The Celtic culture was dominated by the ownership of cattle. Thus, a harvest festival, while not impossible is inappropriate. However, the ancient Anglo Saxon term for the 9^th month (November in Latin) was blotmonath. Pardon the spelling. Etymologically this means blood month. A month of sacrifice. Let us look at this logically, as a primitive people prepare for winter certain things must be observed. The livestock that will not make it through the winter are slaughtered. Feasting then occurs. Sacrifices are made to the gods. Bonfires, etymologically derived from Bone Fires, are lit. I’m speaking of Europeans here, not all cultures. But note that most cultures developed a festival of the dead or some festival to honour the dead. Feralia (again, pardon my spelling) was the Roman festival of the dead, I believe. Samhain was so for the Celts. Yes, it is said that during that time the veil between our world and other worlds was thinner and that the deceased could return to their families, but was this the case? We have evidence of practices such as leaving food out for the dead that suggest that people believed in such things. Dias de los Muertos in Mexico is an example of an extravagant festival of the dead.

But what of the claims of a night of evil? Samhain? The Lord of the Dead? No. No records of such a being exist. What of the claims of some Christians that it takes away from the worship of Jesus by being an ancient pagan festival? Nonsense. To look at modern Halloween is not to see an ancient Celtic festival or a holy day for a bunch of faggoty fat-arsed tree worshippers with a predilection for feminist fantasy novels, crystal jewelry and an avoidance of soap. To look at modern Halloween is to see an All-American holiday.

THE MODERN HALLOWEEN

I stand by my claims in the past that Halloween is an all-American holiday; at least as it is celebrated today it is. Consider the prime symbol of Halloween, being the Jack O Lantern. European Jack O Lanterns from the past were carved from turnips. However, with significant Irish immigration to this nation the pumpkin was chosen as the new Jack O Lantern. The pumpkin is a plant native to this continent. It is an all-American bit of produce and a symbol of the American harvest. Here in the most powerful capitalist nation in the world we have a holiday which is not recognized federally and yet earns the most money for retailers save for Christmas. Other nations don’t have Halloween. They have their own Christmas and their own national day, like our Independence Day, but they don’t have a Halloween. It’s about community. It is a night when you visit neighbors you live around daily but to whom you would not say three words normally. A village feeling comes over the community. Soon winter will arrive and we will all come home to early darkness and shut ourselves away inside our homes to ward off the cold. It’s a very nice time, really.

If I may quote my old college professor, Dr. Glosecki (who taught my Viking Lit class), “We live in a time that is technologically advanced but mythologically depleted. I think people hunger for some sense of mystery.”

I agree. Look at people turning to New Age religions. Once upon a time we had a creation story. Then evolution was pushed onto us with no opposing ideas presented in the educational system. Children are taught the scientific method by a system that has disregarded it in favour of Western Scientific Materialism, which is just another religion. They are taught to question what feels right instinctually, but to accept the existence of a thing they cannot prove their direct experience, such as the Moon. People hunger for a mystical experience. I have nothing against churches that hold “harvest parties” instead of Halloween parties. I have nothing against churches that have a ‘scared straight’ style horror house to show us how we are all going to Hell if we don’t get saved. That’s their version of spreading the word. Doesn’t work for me, but that’s cool. So if going out on Halloween night and getting the Hell scared out of you makes you turn away from the scientific material world for a bit and ponder why Peter Cushing was the best Van Helsing ever and that Dracula belongs staked, that’s cool too. I love Halloween. I love the Autumn. Maybe I’m morbid. Maybe I’m even wrong. I say I am a Christian, not the best Christian, but then I didn’t think it was a competition. I can reconcile my Christianity and my love of this “pagan” festival without feeling a liar or that I am making excuses. Although it chafes me to know that the wiccans, with their made up 20^th century neo-pagan bullshite religion treat it as special (even though they are just plain wrong, again, and if they claim to be so bloody Celtic, why don’t they celebrate it the right way?), I will still celebrate it and enjoy it fully. I will watch It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown and indulge in dressing up. And I encourage other Americans to do so as well. It is a community event. Unlike Christmas, which while it may make you feel your neighbours are not so bad and you may send out Christmas cards on your block, is still about visiting your family. Halloween is the village coming together. It’s what Thanksgiving SHOULD be, but instead Thanksgiving is about getting together with the family, fighting about who your cousin Nancy is blowing THIS time and why Uncle Phil and Aunt Dot aren’t “intimate” anymore and how Uncle Phil’s new secretary seems to have much nicer jewelry than her salary should allow. And Grandpa says that cousin Ned “isn’t sensitive, he’s a fuckin’ pansy.” Then you watch football and wonder how that green foamy shit with the marshmallows in get to the dinner table anyway. It wasn’t in the fridge when I got here, I checked and I saw everyone come in the front door and nobody was carrying it. Where in the hell did that come from and how is it that although nobody is seen eating it, it always has at least three portions missing by night’s end.

2006-07-27T10:31:00.000-05:00

THREE PET PEEVES:

1. People who mispronounce the word daemon.

2. The use of the term Homophobic to mean anyone that doesn't want to be a faggot.

3. Wiccans.

Share and enjoy,
V.

2006-07-26T08:12:00.000-05:00

"Pink 5 standing by."

I was first familiarized with Stacey a couple of years ago when the first Star Wars movie contest, authorized by George Lucas, was sponsored at Atomfilms. If anyone reading this has not seen Pink 5. It is well worth the watch. This director could have a good career in comedy.

Last night I somehow stumbled across Atomfilms latest Star Wars fanfilm contest. I saw that Pink 5 was on it's third film Return of Pink 5, Vol 1. Apparently I missed Pink 5 Strikes Back. But all three are darn good fanfilms, and quite funny. All feature the adventures of socialite, Valley Girl, Stacey as she is intermixed into Star Wars lore, just out of view of the films heroes during famous Star Wars events, similar to way Forest Gump was always somehow associated with well known events in Americana. The direction is witty, and the actors very good compared to 90% of the fanfilms out there. I was very impressed with the actors and costumes. Although the 3D is good, the animation is sometimes lacking. The director does much better with live action, and blue-screen 3D backdrops than he does with say, and X-wing taking off. Still, it takes little away from the overall concept.

Congratulations to Trey Stokes for your accomplishments. You can read more about Pink 5 here:

Pink 5 blog

EDIT: Also, against my better judgement I watched the winner of this years contest, Pitching Lucs. It turned out my better judgement didn't know what the hell it was talking about. This movie is very, very funny, and.... very well done.

2006-07-21T07:34:00.000-05:00

A Darker Ending for Episode III

(addendum: This doesn't reflect an actual re-write of the end of Episode III, but rather a possible ending to an ongoing re-imagining)

Obi Wan and the forces of the Naboo Air Force have coordinated a complex counter offensive to both cripple Darth Vader's elite invasion force, and to provide an escape route for Padme Amidala and her two children. The Gungans have agreed to engage in what can only be classified as a suicide mission to divert the attention of Vader's troops and allow for Obi Wan's ambush. The plan works, Republic gunships unleash a massive bombardment on the Gungan positions to cover the approaching troops. Just as the fire their volley, Obi Wan and a hand picked squadron descend from the sky, having been concealed by the clouds and a Jedi provided electronic cloaking device. Amidala's ship slips the atmosphere an disappears into hyperspace.

Padme's ship lands on an obscure mining asteroid. There she is met by other members of the new Galactic Senate. They have just come from session where the Emperor has declared martial law. They have all taken great care, and great risk to disguise their affiliation with the traitor Padme and her fledging insurgency. Yoda is there. He sits quietly, stoic, as the Senators discuss the state of the Republic and their plan to take it back from Palpatine.

After the meeting Padme approaches Yoda, thanking him for his support, and requesting his council in the days to come. Yoda faintly smiles at Padme and informs her that he will do what he must to destroy the Emperor’s grip on the galaxy. She asks if he knows if Obi Wan is ok. He closes his eyes, is silent for moment, and informs her that Obi Wan is safe and on his way to them. Yoda turns and walks away, leaving Padme puzzled.

Yoda enters a dark room sometime later. His face illumined by a faint glow from inside the room. The two infants sleep soundly in their sleep chambers. Yoda's face is grim, intense, as he moves softly across the floor, summoning supply crate to his feet. He climbs up to view the sleeping infants. He stares intently at them. He murmurs to himself. "Failed I have. Arrogant the Jedi had become… blind to the dark side we were." He pauses. "Stop this cycle....I must." Yoda removes his cloak, turns, and spreads it on the floor behind him. He removes his lightsabre from his belt and looks it over, then places it on the table. His sad eyes turn back to the infants. His wrinkles cannot hide the anguish in his face. He stretches his hand out over the infant Luke. He closes his eyes and turns his head away. "Forgive me....Padme..."

"Yoda." A voice emanates from the darkness. "Yoda." Yoda retracts his hand as if it had been slapped. His eyes spring to life. "Qui Gonn" Yoda utters in disbelief. A transparent figure resembling that of Qui Gonn Jinn appears from the shadows. "There is no need to do this Yoda." Yoda tilts his head, his ears raise up. "How have you returned from the force?" "In time I will teach you, but for now, just know that through death I saw Anakin's future, and the future of his offspring." Qui Gonn replied. "The future, always emotion, the future." Yoda rebuffed. "The son of Anakin will be the Emperors undoing. For now, however, you must exile yourself and hide the twins separately from eachother. When the time is right, they will need your guidance and training. It will be a time of struggle and strife for the galaxy. The goodness of the Jedi can only be seen in contrast to the Sith. It is the way of things. We will speak again Yoda... may the force be with you." With that, the ghost of Qui Gonn disappears. Yoda peers once again at the infants. He places his small hand on the forehead of Luke. Then descends from his step, recovers his items and leaves the room.

Just something that went through my brain this morning as I drove to work listening to the Lord of the Rings soundtrack. Just a brief synopsis kind of thing, as I'm always wondering how those movies could have been better. Comments?

2006-07-20T10:55:00.000-05:00

YO JOE!!!

Back in the 1980s we had a cartoon called GI Joe. Like many 80s cartoons it was a part of a mass marketing machine designed to sell toys, bed sets, lunchboxes, stickers, condoms, you name it. GI Joe was an early example of a multi-media marketing ploy, having a regular cartoon Mondays through Fridays, a monthly comic book that spawned spin-offs such as GI Joe Special Missions, and various storybooks and records. GI Joe was the Real American Hero for boys all over this great nation. However, as an adult I can look back on the great loves of my childhood with a wiser and more critical eye. I can see that early cartoons, such as Looney Tunes, can still be enjoyed by adults, as their themes were originally more adult oriented, as fitting given that they were viewed in theatres as part of movie matinees and what not. But not so the great cartoons of my own childhood. These cartoons do not stand the test of time maturity-wise. Thus do I look upon an old childhood favourite, being GI Joe and ask one simple question:

HOW DID THE GI JOE TEAM JUSTIFY THEIR BUDGET AND KEEP THEMSELVES EMPLOYED YEAR AFTER YEAR?

Honestly, their entire concept, cartoon-wise, was the fighting of the number 1 terrorist threat to the free world: COBRA.

But Cobra, in the cartoon at least, was about as ineffectual as a terrorist organization could possibly be. How they ever managed to stay out of GI Joe’s clutches still baffles me. Nothing they did ever worked. Their entire organization was fundamentally flawed as terrorist organizations go. Consider the following points:

A leader that couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery.
Ill-trained soldiers with no capacity for independent thought.
Stylish vehicles that failed in fundamental design laws, such as the HISS tank.
No cohesive theology/ideology/philosophy around which to base their organization.
Ostentatious headquarters: Not hidden, not defensible, idiosyncratic architecture.
Continually repeating the same failed plans in the erroneous belief that “this time it will work”.
Trusting the most delicate and sensitive of missions to an Australian Motorcycle Gang.

Thus, anyone with a modicum of brain power should be able to easily reckon Cobra as a threat to no one but themselves. Cartoon-wise Cobra Commander was such a liability to his own organization that when anyone of quality joined Cobra’s ranks you had to immediately divide their usefulness by a factor of Cobra Commander. Thus Destro, who is a brilliant student of the human condition, a weapons manufacturer, and a physically threatening guy, finds his own usefulness divided by the Cobra Commander Factor. Destro/Cobra Commander=Orko (from Masters of the Universe). And that’s Destro we are talking about. Take somebody less capable, say Dr. Mindbender, and the equation becomes frightening in the extreme. Dr. Mindbender/Cobra Commander=Scooter (from the Go-Bots).

So I imagine that when Duke or Hawk had to present their budget reports and requests to the committees that determined how much dosh GI Joe would get in the next quarter, it was a fully fabricated report. Either that, or GI Joe was a great big slush fund operation for some lucky bastards in Congress who were funneling the majority of the funds earmarked for GI Joe into other pet projects or their beach house in the Cayman Islands.

Know this, if Cobra ever made the mistake of attacking Israel it would be over in about 6 hours. Cobra would be gone. Just gone. Dead as disco. 6 hours. Tops.

2006-07-20T10:13:00.000-05:00

The Gayest thing I have seen since last night's episode of So You Think You Can Dance.

2006-07-19T16:53:00.000-05:00

Glaciers are not thermometers.

I am not a environmentlist. I drive a high performance sports coupe that runs rich. I don't recycle. I don't plant trees. However, I don't want the Earth to find itself on the endangered planets list or end up like some Douglas Adams planetary demise.

Be that as it may, can we stop with the constant nattering of the would be doomday sayers preaching that the seas are gonna rise and the global temps will be enough to kill most lifeforms? I'm so tired of the Jim Hansen brigade telling me that sheets upon sheets of ice will be sliding off Greenland, thus causing Florida to become submerged, New York City to be the next prospect for kayaking fun and California will be known simply as Nevada. I've been entrenched in a online battle with these minions of Al Gore's latest rally cry. You can read at your leisure [url=http://www.rs25.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49293]here[/url].

Essnetially, I have researched on both sides of the topic and my findings are as I suspected. The global warming dilemma is as contested as evolution amongst the scientific community. Okay, maybe not THAT highly debated, but pretty darn close. The major difference I've discovered with global warming is that it's got input from all walks of life. People from Australia talking about the extinction of polar bears...then the very scientists in northern Canada refute that evidence. Experts in one field of study making outlandish remarks about a subject for which they have no business commenting on.

Of course, when I call out these "end of days" lemmings their best retort is a link to some one-sided fascist hippy website. They can't even discuss the issue using facts. *SIGH* I guess I should be happy that I am the threadstopper...

2006-07-19T14:54:00.000-05:00

Nominate the best character from GI Joe!

Pick your favourite and tell why. Use whatever criteria you deem appropriate. Then, when we have some stuff together, we'll do a list.
Or maybe we could just have a nominate 2 thing. 1 Joe and 1 Cobra. Then we'll do a list and have a debate-off!

2006-07-19T14:08:00.000-05:00

Ripped off again.

I ate a Happy Meal. I feel no better now than prior to ingesting said Happy Meal. Should I ask for my money back?
Is the name meant to imply that the Meal will create a feeling of Happiness in it's ingestor?
Is the name a description of the Meal itself, suggesting that the Meal is in and of itself possessing of the quality of Happy?
But as the meal consists of french fried starch sticks, a passable imitation of a cheeseburger and a soda (and this cool Pirates of the Carribbean journal as a prize), and none of these individual items are capable of independent thought so far as we know, can they truly be said to possess the quality of Happy? Are they perhaps a gestaltic entity once placed into their colourful decorated cardboard container; an entity that is, in fact, capable of feeling and independant thought?
And philosophically, I can infer that if they are truly Happy it is because they are not capable of feeling desire, for all desire leads to suffering, as we know from the Buddha and Schoepenhaur.
But then, if they possessed desire, would they want to be eaten? Have they been genetically created to desire nothing more than thier destruction via consumption, turning themselves into energy for our bodies and living on again in the form of fat?
Given the governing body of McDonalds' Land is one Mayor MacCheese, who appears to be some sort of sapient quarter pounder, (perhaps a Royal with Cheese?) or at the very least a being of anthropomorphic proportions who has, as his very head, a cheeseburger of some sort, one would assume that his life's desire is NOT to be consumed by a squaling humanoid child. Unless that is the ultimate heaven/hell dichotomy of McDonald Land. Lacking evidence, I cannot say. However, is it some sort of sacrificial act for Mayor MacCheese to give up his subjects to a colourfully decorated cardboard container that they may be consumed by me and my species? Are we the Chthonic gods of MacDonald Land?
Is my hunger merely to be sated, and never am I to know Happy from the consumption of such a Meal? Is then, the Happy Meal merely a lie told to the young burgers and chicken nuggets of MacDonald Land as they are sacrificed to feed the ever growing hunger of our species? Is that the Happy? And the ironic name designed to disguise the truth of it from the sacrificial lambs and not, as it would seem, a marketing ploy to make me desire the eating of one, in an attempt to absorb the Happy into myself, in some primitive fashion?
Perhaps does Mayor MacCheese name the Meal Happy in the hopes that the sacrifice will be approved of by us, and thus we will not come down upon this MacDonald Land and devour all that we see, or revoke our blessings upon his domain.

It is beyond sad when a 32 year old man gets philosophical about his lunch.
And that, that is the tragic Irony of the Happy Meal and Me.

2006-07-19T09:07:00.000-05:00

What the World needs now...is Love, sweet love???

Kidding, what we desperately need, and I got this idea last night whilst doing some RvR in DAOC, is a GI Joe MMORPG. Who's with me? Come on, you know you want it!

Think about it, lads...it makes perfect sense. We all grew up in the 80's yeah. We all played GI Joe in the dirt with our Action Figures (don't you even think of calling them dolls, sonny Jim) or on the school playground in "live action" or with pellet guns. We argued about who got to be Duke and who got to be Snake Eyes and who HAD to be Cobra Commander.
It is, think back now, one of the joys of your childhood.
It is ripe for a MMORPG. Of course, like Star Wars Galaxies you will not be allowed to be one of the major players, but they will be there. Giving you missions, guarding the Pitt, etc...
And like WoW, it would have multiple factions. GI Joe and Cobra, obviously. But how about Drednocks? Or the Octobre Guard (I'm aware that communism is out, but we could roll back the clock for nostalgia's sake).
Talk to me people, what's your take on it?
V.

2006-07-18T08:13:00.000-05:00

It is entirely possible that...

when Vargr reads this you will briefly hear a piercing sound, followed by the end of the universe as we know it. Jinrikisha, formerly known as Rich P. aka blah bah, the third Ricky, told me about this upcoming movie while we chatted last evening. Following on the heals of our discussion of Tribal Americans, and the perplexing way some genuflect to their primitive culture, comes a film about a Viking boy left behind to be raised by benevolent Skraelings (The word is so perfectly appropriate now). The movie is called Pathfinder. You can click the image below for a link to the trailer. Extreme caution should be exercised when showing this to someone with even a shred of respect for historical accuracy.

Eager to find a new and fresh way to vilify Europeans, director Marcus Nispel turns to the Norse for his demonic antagonists. The imdb.com movie trivia section has an enlightening paragraph that I feel betrays the filmmakers intent.

Despite knowing that the Vikings' helmets didn't historically have large animal horns on them, the film makers decided to add them in anyway. This would work with the modern audiences who have an ingrained stereotype of what a Viking should look like in their mind. Moreover, the horns make the Vikings look more terrifying.

So, they acknowledge that the popular lore about horned Viking helmets is baseless, but rather than depict them correctly and possibly cause a few people to rethink this stereotype, the filmmakers acknowledge that it is easier on everyone if we just leave them in place. These aren't the horns of common livestock, mind you, these are the horns of some unclassified beast. Possibly, straight out of hell, where it appears these particular Vikings originated. The second part of the paragraph is the kicker. This is tantamount to saying "We want the highest level of vilification possible."

Watching the trailer made me squirm in my seat. Were I to paint a replica of the Mona Lisa with the intent of selling it as an original, I would be immediately descended upon by swarms of lawyers eager to eat me alive. Why is it then, that one director can blatantly rip off the scenes, frame for frame, from another director's work, and not incur similar consequences is beyond me. Add to this the cheesy "love and hate" dialogue, the obligatory, gratuitous love scene between the white man and the squaw, and you have the makings of a regurgitated hack and slash flick with quasi-historical themes and homoerotic depictions designed to fill the seats with women and metrosexuals alike. I kept expecting a cell phone to ring and for the actors to turn to the camera so that I would be comforted that this all a big gag.

I find amusment, as I think about it, in the way so many movies have depicted the Tribal American woman, specifically the daughter of the Tribal Chieftain (General's daughter syndrome) as the ultimate pinnacle of sexual conquest for the Caucasian protagonist. You would think that this would infuriate the feminists. But so long as the man has properly rejected his whiteness, and embraced tribalism, the feminist quietly eat their popcorn between smirks.

Watch for Vargr's comments. I'm sure they will be unforgettable.

2006-07-14T11:02:00.000-05:00

OPEN LETTER TO M. KNIGHT SHYMALALALANAANANA

Dear M. Knight,

Quit it.

Sincerely,
V. Rikardson

2006-07-14T08:47:00.000-05:00

The Gods must out of their damn mind!

An office debate about the war in Iraq somehow digressed into talk of the indigenous tribal societies that occupied the North American continent. The popular name is Indian. Vargr calls them Skraelings, a Norse word used to describe the indigenous people the Vikings encountered in Greenland and North America. The base word Skral connotes "Thin" or "Scrawny." I used to call them Native Mongoloid, usually to infuriate some knucklehead at work who would start nattering on about what the white man did to "my people." It never ceases to amaze me how many white Anglo-Saxons (we'll discuss this term later) I run into who want so badly to be able to demonstrate some [insert tribe here] connection. As if it makes them a better person because of it. That I will ignore what an ignorant dumbass said person is because of their dubious heritage. Since it was deemed societally acceptable, nay required, to refer to black Americans, who had never been within sight of the African continent, as African Americans. I figured that it would be ok to call the descendents of them that crossed the land bridge from Asia, Mongoloid Americans. Later I started using Native Mongoloid, but I was never really happy with that description. After reading some other internet sites dedicated to this debate, I decided to adopt a new name. Tribal Americans. Tribal American, however, I've came to realize is not just a cultural identifier, but a description of a disturbing state of mind. It is more encompassing than the irrelevant idea that because a person can trace their lineage back to the pre-Colonial inhabitants, it thereby bequeaths them some sacrosanct status as a hyphenated American. If my loathe for this practice of hyphenation is not apparent yet, it will be. I'm in total agreeance with Theodore Roosevelt on the subject of hyphenation.

... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else. READ MORE

Life is a vicious cycle. Civilizations evolve and devolve. Migration is a constant. Have you ever heard of a Native-Briton? No, of course not, because the original Britons were conquered by the Romans, then enveloped by the Anglo-Saxons who were formerly Germanic tribes. Their tribal traditions and cultures disappeared. We see movies like Braveheart where a Scottish Knight is depicted like a Pict of the first century. In reality William Wallace wore period armor and did not cover his face with woad. Of course those are oversimplifications of the demise of British tribalism, but it demonstrates that when you get past its surface, history is much more incommensurable than the popular notion that it is all the white man's fault. Today the term Anglo-Saxon is used as in incorrect, and often derogatory, way to describe British and American Caucasians. The truth is cultures have been overrunning other cultures as long as recorded history. Whether that culture is an unformalized clan or an Empire. While race may be used as convenient fulcrum to sway opinion against the opposing tribe, it really has little to do with race. It's about human migration.

The Aztecs, or Mexica if you prefer, where in the infancy of an Empire when the Spanish found them. I have no doubt that given more time the Aztecs would have moved like the Roman Empire across North America. The "Native American" conquest by the Europeans would have simply been replaced by one from members of their own anthropological archetype. Would that have made you feel any better? But, instead of being the victims of human sacrifice and living in slavery under an Aztec monarchy, the tribal Americans of today live in relative freedom, constrained only by their unwillingness to unshackle themselves from tribal dogma. This phenomenon is not limited to the Indians. Some black Americans have likewise attempted to engage in this revisionist tribal superiority. Its a humorous thing the way these groups use the institutions of civilization in an attempt to convince the ignorant how much better off we’d all be better living in a mud hut smoking cactus. Or worse, they use them to insinuate they (The unelected spokesperson for the entire demographic) should be provided continuous, special dispensation, on account of wrongs done to their ancestors by someone else’s ancestors, as if such clear lineages could be demonstrated. Does this mean that was done to Tribal Americans or Black Americans was right? Absolutely not. I'm just trying to put it into some historical context.

So come back to the present for a moment. America is currently suffering a descent back to tribalism. The weight and responsibility of freedom is simply too much to bear. "In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us." Cries the Grand Inquisitor to Jesus in Dostoevsky's parable. Many people would rather spend their money partying every weekend than buy health insurance, spend their time watching sports than cast an educated and informed vote. Then of course they demand to be taken care of by the rest of the tribe. Especially the rich members of the tribe who were lucky enough to be better hunters, or more efficient gatherers. After all, it isn't about individual effort is it? Are we so willing to sell off our freedom for firewater so we can dance around the fire (or the disco ball if you prefer) to the rhythmic drums, half-naked, tattooed, and pierced? I'm afraid we are.

2006-07-11T08:27:00.000-05:00

I pledge allegience to the fags
of the Devisive States of Amerika
And to the hedonism
for which they stand
One nation, under goddess,
Unfathomable,
With Irresponsibility
And Justice
For some

I realize that I rarely know what is going on in the world. Despite the fact that my wife tunes to the news at least once a day, I rarely know what is going on in the world. However, yesterday I was watching CNN and saw this article about a brave American soldier that died in Iraq and his wife will not accept the standard memorial because he was and she is a Wiccan and the Federal government will not put a pentacle on the memorial and this makes her very, very unhappy. Of course her logic is that the Federal government is ignoring their religion, which they claim is a real religion, and therefore are violating the Constitution and the ever so sacred first amendment.
First let me lay out some basic concepts:
1. I have done more funerals than I can remember as a member of the Colour Guard. The folded flag memorial things, the coffin slabs and what have you are mass produced. Like the uniforms of the soldiers and sailors, the memorials are UNIFORM. The Federal government gives two shits about who dies in combat. So let's not pretend that the govvies care. It is the fellow soldiers and sailors who care. It is those left behind who care.
2. Wicca is not, categorically NOT, a bloody religion. It's lazy wrapped up in some bullshit chanting that allows its adherents to be "individuals" while comfortably fitting into a subculture.
3. Freedom (as guaranteed by the First Amendment) is NOT a bloody right, no matter what the Bill of Rights says, it is a privilage. It must be maintained with dilligence, logic, morality, and yes, sometimes bloodshed.

So what we have here is a woman who has lost her doofus of a husband (I saw pictures, he was a doofus) and rather than grieve and accept the loss, she wants what? Attention? Redress of wrongs? What does she want?
Could it be a memorial that reflects her religion? Doubtful. During all the funerals that I did I never actually noticed a religious content to the memorials. We folded the flag and gave it to the widow, son, whoever and thanked them for the sacrifice they made. But we never actually brought God into it. So this wiccan bullshit is pointless.
Remember separation of Church and State? The Wiccans cry that God must be left out of schools and government proceedings, but she wants special attention of her government to her religion. Sorry, crazy bitch, not actually guaranteed in the First Amendment. First Amendment guarantees that Congress will not make you worship a god of their choosing and that you will be allowed to practice your religion freely. NOT that the government has to make special rules to give you Wiccan things and rites.
Side note: In Winter Harbour I had a wiccan girlfriend. She passed on. Enough about that. However her memorial service was conducted by our Catholic Chaplain and it included Christian rites. Not wiccan rites. Was I upset. A bit. But that memorial wasn't for her, it was for us, the ones she left behind. And I am not, nor have I ever been a bloody dirt worshipper.
So what I see is another stupid, bloody American woman that wants her special Gynocracy enforced, but is not willing to make the sacrifices and uphold the responsibilities that Freedom requires and entails.
Too many bloody Americans want their privilages to be RIGHTS and forget that in order to have privilages they must uphold their RESPONSIBILITIES. And this stupid cow getting CNN coverage, and bringing in her Wiccan lobbyist to help her make noise (sound and fury, signifying nothing) is a prime example of what is wrong with this country. Not its laws. Not its government. It's people.

Discuss.

2006-07-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

POTC Review: Loved it.
But
I see where Rikalonius and some others have expressed a distaste for this film versus the original. Often in a sequel the thought is to take the habits and motives of the established characters and revisit them, to remind us all that these are the same characters. But the characters also have to grow a bit or we are unhappy. Add to that the Back to the Future Set Up Motif. I think we all remember BTtF 2 and 3. Filmed together, released a summer apart. BTtF 2 is easily the weakest film. It really feels like a rehash of Part One with a set up ending for Part 3. Part 3 is arguably the best. Matrix, I have heard, has a similar phenomenon, the Part 2 is a set up for part 3 and not a film in it's own right.
I could argue the same thing about SW ep 1 and 2 being all set up for the big payoff in Ep 3, but we all knew going into it that Ep 3 was the whole bloody point.
Now don't get me wrong, I think that there were problems with Dead Man's Chest. There were certainly things I'd have done differently, but perhaps every film has that feature to it. Maybe that's why so many directors these days would rather "reinvent" an older work than simply make a new film.
However, and call me an apologist if you will, I stand ready to defend the film.
Let us begin with the bad teeth. Fact of life.
Pintel and Ragetti. In the first film they were portrayed very much as the Abott and Costello of Barbossa's crew. Not as blackheartedly evil as their crewmates, but not nice men at all. We even got a hint that Ragetti was smarter than he let on when they were rowing out as a distraction and he said, "This is just like what the Greeks done at Troy. Cept they was in an 'orse. A wooden 'orse."
So there is a precedent for Ragetti knowing about mythology and such. Obviously the writers felt that they were fan favourites enough that they needed to be in the 2nd film, but had to find a way to justify it. Thus their "new attitudes" toward life, justified by their realizing their own mortality. Personally I saw no need to have them back, but if they must come back, at least give them a plausible motivation, which I feel was done. Now why did Jack allow them to hang out with his crew, since they were mutineers from his first command? It can be justified, and I will do so if asked. Though I admit the question has come to me, and did so during the film.
Norrington. What a satisfying turn of events for a character who was very deep in the first film, if only the audience would pay attention to what's going on.
It seems that if we view the first film we can see multiple plot lines all pulling toward the same conclusion, so to speak.
In the first film we had: Barbossa and the crew of the Black Pearl-All wanted to find the last bit of treasure, Bootstrap's offspring and end the curse.
Will Turner-Primary Goal Acquire Elizabeth Swann for Himself. Secondary Goal Rescue E. Swann from Barbossa (who has kidnapped E. Swann to complete his one and only goal)
Elizabeth Swann-No stated goals or objects. Liz is reactive throughout the first film, she is the plot device.
Norrington-Primary Goal is to serve the RN and do his duty. Secondary Goal is to marry Liz.
Jack Sparrow- Primary overarching goal to recover the Pearl. Secondary goal to be revenged upon Barbossa.
These all tie together well and bring all of our major players to the denoument in a satisfying way.
But in POTC:DMC the goals do not mesh, the storyline does not follow the proper structure. The big failure (because I feel there were some failures) is that the writers and Verbinski try to take the disparate plotlines and stick to the traditional narrative style. That makes the viewer uncomfortable. Tarantino (whiney bitch that he is) discarded the traditional style with Reservoir Dogs and to a greater extent in Pulp Ficiton and we loved him for it. DMC chooses to stay linear and we are discomfited by this.
We have:
East India Company-Wants the compass to get the box with the heart to control Davy Jones
Davy Jones-Simply wants what is owed to him.
EIC causes the genesis of both Will and Liz's goals-Each seeks to win freedom for the other. In the process Will picks up an equally important secondary goal of saving his doomed father.
Norrington-Again, a fascinating character. Primary goal seems to be redemption, but in his own eyes not society's. Secondary goal would be to be revenged upon the men that have brought him, in his belief, to this sad state.
Jack's Crew-Just want to do some honest pirating
Jack-Primary goal is to save his skin no matter who gets in the way.
Thus we have conflict with no satisfactory resolution. Everyone can't win. In the first film it all wrapped up nicely. But not in this one. It couldn't have. And if it had, the Deus Ex Machina used to bring it about would have everyone over the age of 10 crying FOUL!
With DMC we have launched fully into the supernatural. While the status of the cursed pirates from CotBP would suggest it has already happened, I say it was this film that has done it. In CotBP even Jack, who knew more about Barbossa than any other character not of his crew was surprised to find out that the curse was true. Norrington and all sensible people that did not witness it first hand doubted it until it was shown to them.
Now we should not be surprised that Jack is comfortable with the supernatural elements of Davy and his crew, after all, he struck a deal with them. Pintel and Ragetti have been cursed to be undead for 10 years, Liz and Will are intimately familiar with the supernatural now. Jack's crew too.
But the British East India Co? A little odd that they were so comfortable with the whole situation and knew so much about it. This is why I say that DMC crosses the line into the supernatural.
And why not? A film about real pirates doing real pirate shit would be either too boring or too graphic to be watched.
Watching pirates at work day to day would be about as exciting as watching a bunch of squids chipping paint. Real pirates often went weeks to months with no excitement. As they were sailors they did what sailors do. They scrubbed, varnished, washed, swabbed, mended sails, payed out seams. Yawn. Most ships were taken without a fight, using intimidation and guile. The exciting battles of Master and Commander are simply not Pirate fare. In fact, most pirate movies throughout the history of the cinema have not really been about Pirates doing Pirate shit. Rather Pirate films are about buried treasure, heroic privateers fighting for a higher ideal against an evil government, misunderstood rogues out to clear their names, or some other equally dashing and swashbuckling concept that is simply not the case.
In a way, the POTC ride is more accurate to a pirate's life than any pirate film ever produced.
Take Cutthroat Island, for example. Take it and shove it right up Gena Davis's arse. God, that was the worst pirate film ever. Ever. Ever.
But it proves my point. A chick pirate inherits her crew from her late father, also a pirate, finds 3 pieces of a map and dodges her evil pirate uncle while searching for a fabulous buried treasure along with the help of charming rogue Matthew Modine. What the shit was that all about? A Carriage chase? Blowing up the waterfront of Port Royal? To catch one bloody carriage with Gena Davis in?
The only good thing about that film, and believe me I had to search to find one thing about it that was not so charybdic as to pull my very eyeballs from their sockets, was Frank Langella as Dog Brown. A thoroughly evil pirate bastard.
So with the POTC films we do not get the day to day life of pirates. That would be interesting to only a few and lack any sort of box office pull. Rather we get the odd slices of life that occur when they are not at work.
But this is every film or telly show. Star Trek. Once a week we were treated to a few days or even just a few hours out of the full time of the starships Enterprises. Because nobody wants to see an episode devoted to 8 hours of LaForge standing the midwatch....just makeing log entries and trying to stay awake. Or maybe an entire episode of O'Brian doing PMs on the transporters.
And what about cop movies and gangster movies and cowboy movies. Would you watch 2 hours of cowboys moving a herd of beeves across the desert? Just moving the herd. Making camp for the night. Drinking coffee, eating beans, telling stories. Maybe some gay love, cuz you know that shit went on. Then up and hit the trail in the morning. Occaissonaly cut a sick cow out of the herd, or bringing in a wanderer? Hell no. That's like some French fucking art flick where the cowboys discuss the meaning of life while they ride through a sea of steer flesh. Or City Slickers. Same diff.
Now, I will admit that your man Johnny hams it up a bit. But I honestly believe that is the character of Jack Sparrow as he sees it. Jack is a bit of a ham, it's obvious from his actions and attitudes. And yet he's also not a nice person. This is the film that at some point should make all but the youngest viewers that like to fantasize that they ARE Jack Sparrow feel uncomfortable with their choice in fantasy hero.
He is, after all, a pirate. But not a really great pirate. He is a fantasy pirate. Henry Morgan or Blackbeard would have his arse, it's a fact. But that's part of his charm, I suppose. Why did Han Solo give up his life of crime? For the love of a woman? Maybe, I can't truly say. Every baddie turned goodie needs something to make him change. But what is it in Jack's case?
Does he have a heart of gold?
Does he really fancy Elizabeth?
Does he just need to lead a dramatic existence that would make him always show up at the most opportune time to make him look good?
Who knows?

To sum up: I think we've all gotten a bit spoiled, cinema-wise. Once upon a time we accepted the lack of blood, the implied violence, the poor special effects and make-up and toned down action. Once upon a time we could sit in a theatre and watch a scene of exposition between two characters in a room and not squirm. Once upon a time we loved to hear Clint say "Go ahead, make my day." or John Wayne say, "I'm not gonna hit ya. The Hell I'm not!". We loved a one-liner. Something we could quote and mis-quote to our friends. "Play it again, Sam." Never said. Not even once. "He slimed me." A classic.
But then shit changed. Every bloody director wanted to be Orson Welles. Every one of them wanted their own goddamn Citizen Kane. M. Knight Suckmycockalon (No talent asshole) thinks that he is Hitchcock. Yet he's made the same film 5 times in a fucking row. Hey M. Knight, get a fucking clue. You suck. Make a new film with a new plot and stop cutting the fucking trailers to make them all look like horror movies when every fucking one of them is a piece of shit happy snappy sappy bullshit story with an O Henry twist ending. Fucking read some Poe you no talent Hack fuck.
We've come to expect a certain amount of brilliance in our cinema and demand a certain amount of "comfort" points in the films. We, as the film watching/ticket purchasing audience, demand a certain narrative structure, we demand a certain 'entertainment' factor that fits a pre-determined pattern. We want everything to have the brilliance of Ovid, mixed with the wit of Wilde, and the Gravitas of the Bible, all rolled into a neat 93 minute package. With or without T&A. We are only prepared to believe in certain things, and that is all we are ready to accept. Whenever something happens that does not fit our concept of belief or "reality" we are distressed and unhappy with the lot.
Do we need an Oceans 13? Hell no. Did we need an Oceans 12? Fuck no (good film though, if you forget that it is a sequel to a remake that never should have been remade. I never watched the remake, so I was OK). Did we need a remake of Oceans 11? Probably not. But here is the clencher: Casablanca, only one of the best films ever (and I really think that, I've seen it more than once, this is not rhetoric) was a remake. Of a play, I believe. Possibly an earlier film, I forget. However, the definitive version was not the first. So remakes are okay, but not neccessary and certainly not to the degree we are seeing today. So when I look at the Pirates sequel and consider a part three coming next summer, I ask myself "what do I want from the film itself?"
If I were really into a sports team or even a single sports star, I would want to see them/him at thier/his best every game. I would want to see them/him doing that thing they do. Bend it like Beckham every time, baby. That's what I'm saying. And we never get tired of that. We want our team to play their best every time and do their thing no matter the opponent(s). Same with porn. If you have a fetish, say facial cum shots, you want to see a girl get jit on her face at the end of every scene, no matter what. If it is your fetish you will never get tired of that.
So when I think of it, if you like Jack Sparrow, his crazy attitude and mannerisms, you want to see Capt Jack doing his Capt Jack shit no matter the situation. If you like action films, things should explode. If you like comedy, a fart should be in there somewhere. Etc. Etc.
Thus, I very much enjoyed POTC:DMC. It was off a bit. I wasn't comfortable. I kept trying to reconcile the film I was watching with the trailers I had watched, and I wasn't able to do it. Sure, I had the basic story structure in my head, but I wasn't ready for that ending. I wasn't ready for the oddness of it. For catching glimpses of a character before the narrative switched again to another bit of story. I was sometimes disoriented, but given the dispersal of the major characters prior to the opening and shortly thereafter, it took quite a bit of work to get everyone together.
In comparison, look at Lord of the Rings. In Fellowship (book and film) an odd series of events leads to a very hokey and contrived meeting that creates a fellowship to deliver the One Ring to Mt Doom and by the end of it the fellowship is broken, leaving two gay hobbits to follow one path (meet Yoda, save their father) and leaving the remainder to fight an entire war becoming friends for life and re-establishing a kingship.
If anything Fellowship is a weak book/film designed to bring on a two part single film about a war.
In this respect POTC was like the Hobbit, setting stages, introducing characters and telling an easily wrapped up story. DMC and Part 3 becomes like Fellowship and THEOTHERTWO respectively.
At least I hope.

2006-07-09T16:27:00.000-05:00

Planes, Trains and....Cars?

Having enjoyed Pixar's latest (albeit long awaited) anime, I do have a few concerns. First of all, why the long aforementioned wait?? I understand you had bad blood with Disney, but who doesn't? Michael Eisner should die a horrid, painful death due to his corruption of one of America's cornerstone family enterprises. But this should not have any bearing on Pixar's strong box office domination.

Secondly, what age group are you targeting? With Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., and Nemo it was fairly clear your audience should be carrying lunchboxes adorned with GI Joe stickers. There are the occasional jokes thrown in to keep the parents from having Barney or TeleTubby flashbacks, but for most part the message is aimed 4' and lower. Not so with the latest flicks, The Incredibles and Cars. I’ll admit the former is just that, incredible. Who would've thought a superhero couple could hash out their differences all the while indoctrinating their children into superherodom and beating the crazed arch nemesis. Alas, this type of "lesson to be learned" was also applied succently to Cars. Not since Knight Industries Two Thousand has an audience had the opportunity to glean tidbits of wisdom from a fossil fueled air pump on tires. Childish antics aside, the crux of the message is aimed more so at adults, with the hopes that crumb-droppers pick up on the Good Samaritan act as well.

Lastly, why wasn't the envelope being pushed? The Incredibles introduced audiences to lifelike hair movement via Violet's long black mane. Even Sully from Monsters, Inc. had pretty good animatics. Sure, some might say the realism isn't needed in this genre. But if that were the case, then explain the vast differences between Pixar's first CGI film and Finding Nemo. No, they ARE trying to push the envelope; otherwise they lose the edge to Dreamworks pictures, their only other competition.

I just hope Cars was a long delayed, mildly executed carryover until Pixar releases their next masterpiece. Otherwise, I'll just keep watching Syndrome get his butt kicked by an incredible family.

2006-07-07T17:05:00.000-05:00

I, Crossbones

This post will begin to showcase work on Crossbones the Pirate. A fictional late 1600's Buccaneer. This is ground floor concept art designed to get ideas flowing.

Rik

2006-06-29T17:41:00.000-05:00

More powerful than a Locomotive... Train wreck!

Superman Returns review

Gargantuan Plot Spoilers!!

Well, it probably isn't as bad as all that, but it has some glaring faults. To start with, the movie's plot is schizophrenic. To put it simply, the film makers are unsure of their final product. How much of the first two movies should we acknowledge? Any time a thought a plot device would be used to come to an obvious conclusion, the story would derail and try to take on a whole new theme. I'm not insinuating that it's full of plot twists. It isn't, it is full of plot potholes. Visually it is stunning. Superman sonic booms are cool, and he flies with a purpose, even if at one point he seems to be trying real hard to reach and airplane in freefall, and at another time, a news reporter can be heard on a background television as saying "He seems to be able to move at the speed of light." The problems I thought I would have with Brandon Routh, I did not. It was the whole supporting cast around him that couldn't carry their weight. Surfer girl Kate Bosworth in brown hair color is out of her league playing Lois Lane, in more ways than one. In addition to treating Superman's hiatus like a pouty little prom queen who didn't get a mustang for graduation, she is also to young for the role. In an obvious attempt to appeal to the Smallville crowd (you should all be ashamed there is a reason to identify such a demographic), Lois, Martha Kent, and Jimmy Olsen are all younger than when Superman finished off his business with ZOD and fled earth to visit the grave of his home world. This reverse aging must have been some strange carry over from Sups reversing time in order to save Lois, and all of California, from obliteration.

The few attempts to make Superman's reach larger than Metropolis, are dwarfed by the jilted lover routine which both gets tiresome and reduces the movies scope to an almost a Lois and Clark style soap opera. One would think that having witnessed what Lois Lane had witnessed while in Superman's presence, she would have outgrown childish infatuations, and been able to accept the bigger picture. The film does depict her as having moved on, if not begrudgingly, with her five year old son (Coincidence, I think not) and her long time fiancé. Singer obviously borrows from Raimi's Mary Jane, the difference being that Lois was suppose to be a street-wise, battle hardened journalist, not a struggling actress just out of school.

Lex Luthor's plot is laughable, but handled very seriously. The movie is pretty devoid of camp, but it is not devoid of a bad plot. Kevin Spacey is a brilliant actor, but I feel his talents are slightly wasted on this role. His mega scheme is to use crystals stolen from the Fortress of Solitude (more selective memory on the part of the script writers as the Fortress crystals were destroyed when Kal-El embraced mortality) to create a Krypton like crystal continent a couple hundred miles from the eastern seaboard. Cobra Island? To make sure his new fortress is safe, he combines one of the seed crystals with a tube fashioned from a stolen asteroid chunk. Anyone want to take a guess as to the origin of this meteorite? That's right children, it's from Krypton. The entire island is laced with kryptonite veins. Oddly enough, only when Luthor plunges a make-shift kryptonite shiv into Superman does it actually do any damage. Just being near it removes his invulnerability, making him susceptible to an ass-whopping by Luthor's thugs. Oh would I have loved to see a scene in which Bruce Wayne, also reacting to this geological phenomenon in the Atlantic, shows up on Luthor's new crystal formation as Clark is taking his beating, stands atop some high point and says to the thugs "What we got here is... failure to communicate." Unfortunately Batman doesn't make an appearence, and Superman, broken and beaten, falls off a ledge and plummets hundreds of feet into the ocean below with a kryptonite shard lodged into a couple of ribs.

At this point the film itself takes a huge plunge into surreal. The closing scenes are retarded, disconnected, and I just sat there with puzzled look on my face as they played out. I think the most damning complaint of this film is that Singer tries to hard to laud the story's mystical elements. My mother use to tell me the old cliché that imitation is the highest form of flattery, and while I believe that to be mostly true, what Singer does more resembles mimicry. He steals too many scenes from the movies who's story he purports to be advancing, all the while dropping small (infinitesimal) hints of these same past events. Out of fiver stars, I would give it three. Cinematography is 5/5. Plot is 2/5 and Direction is 2/5.

2006-06-28T23:23:00.000-05:00

Clark Lars? What if Kal-El had crash landed on a different farm...

Using Vargr's example of the Yuuzhan Vong's invulnerability to force powers, we might conclude that metaphysical governors are not applied universally, but galacticly. This might be why Superman is so much more powerful in our Galaxy. We will deal with this more in depth when I watch the movie Superman Returns, but this might also explain why kryptonite is so lethal to him, additionally it would also suggest that a quick holiday to the void in space formerly known as Krypton might result in his immediate demise. The aura of invulnerability he enjoys in our Galaxy may not extend to his own, there he would just be another mortal, killed the second he emerged from the forth dimension into the void of Krypton space.

So how different would Kal-El be having been raised on Tatooine as opposed to Earth? Firstly we must deal with the obvious difficulties of any planet orbiting in a binary star system. Tatooine would have to be much further away from Tatoo I and II than our own planet is from its sun. Even as inhospitable as Tatooine may appear, it would probably resemble Venus if it's perigee to center of mass mimicked that of Earth. So Superman's solar sustenance would possibly be reduced by distance alone. However, being that most visible binary stars in our own galaxy are made of two stars hotter and more dense than our own, we still have a couple of options to consider. Krypton's sun was a Red Dwarf, the coolest of all stars, with a surface temperature of 2000-3500 Kelvin. Kal-El came to earth where, by Earthly classifications, we orbit a Type G star, with a Kelvin surface temperature of 6000 (although an atmospheric temperature of 1,000,000 K). This "Yellow" sun is what gives Superman his incredible powers. But like most things, there is almost always a too much variable.

If our Yellow Sun is a just right sun, then as pointed out by Vargr, would the combined energy of a blue class A star and a white class F (the most commonly observed binary configuration) be lethal to little Kal, or provide him with demigod abilities? I submit the former. It could be that the distance Tatooine is from its suns would negate any solar overload. In any case his powers would be different from his powers on earth simply because the stellar nucleosynthesis of the binary stars is different from our own. And, it's a different galaxy than either Earth or Krypton, so the afore mentioned metaphysical unknown is in play. Be that as it may, when Jor-El went searching for a planet, reminiscent of a parent selecting a good pre-school, I believe he would have definitely avoided Tatooine.

2006-06-28T18:15:00.000-05:00

MORE SUPERMAN VS JEDI

I was just watching a bit of ROTS and I noticed something during the Dooku vs Anakin and Obi-Wan fight. Dooku lifts Obi-Wan up and then smashes him against the wall. But as he is lifting Obi-Wan into the air, Obi-Wan appears to also be in pain. Perhaps choking? Hard to say. Now as I watch I am listening to the commentary track. Wow, it's like listening to hermits discuss current events. But I digress, we don't fully understand the mechanics of the Force. What we do understand is a hodge podge of gamespeak using info gleaned from RGPs, MMORPGS, and PC games, combined with a dose of what we've all gained from novels and comics, and a dash of our own personal philosophies.
Thus, while we can say that Dooku used some form of TK on Obi-Wan to lift and move him, this is simply a way of labeling something that we actually don't understand. I feel that labeling something as Telekinetic is a bit of a cop out. Yes, it is movement over space without physically touching the object. But, if I secret a magnet of sufficent power in a glove and then wave my hand near a ferrous object, and the object comes into my hand, would you say I was telekinetic? If you were gullible you might. But the point is that movement over space without physical manipulation is not TK. When we say TK we are referring to a power that is generated by and controlled by the mind. Psionics, if you will.
But the Jedi philosophies that Yoda droned on and on about when he was training Luke (easily the Special Ed, short bus of the Jedi) tell us that the Force is created by life. It surrounds everything. Yoda seemed to be asking Luke to feel the Flowing around the rocks, not within them. But the land, it is full of life, and the Force is there. Thus was Luke manipulating the waves of Force around and under the rock?
Now to apply this to Superman. In the EU of SW we have the Yuhzun Vong, who come from beyond the Galactic Empire. The Force does not exist in their galaxy and somehow this means that when they enter the galaxy of our heroes they are immune to the Force. The Force is blind to their presence. They cannot be Force choked or any of that nonsense. By this token, and noting that neither Earth nor Krypton is in the SW galaxy, it could very well be that Superman would simply be immune to the effects of the Force. Further, despite Lucas's original idea of lightsabres as being these immensely powerful laser swords, the EU and later films and novels have stressed that the lightsabre is not just a piece of technology. To the Jedi it is a part of the Force. It is used like a Tai Chi sword as part of attuning with the Force. Quite possibly the sabres would not even work were it not for the Force, and therefore when not being used by a Jedi they would be far less effective.
Thus, until someone can decisively convince me otherwise, I believe that the evidence both canon, EU and anectdotal suggests that Superman could decisively beat a Jedi or a Sith with or without the help of Hostess (tm) products.
Now I put this question to you: On Tatooine, being a binary star system, would Kal be MORE powerful having the presence of two suns?
Or is it possible that his body would find itself unable to contain the nuclear forces occuring in his cells in the presence of such an environment?